Attempts Liability Flashcards
where does the law for attempts come from
Criminal Attempts Act 1981
how is D criminalised via attempts liability (3, use case)
-must attach to a future princple offence (FPO), no liability for attempts alone
-D criminalised for more than merely preparatory acts towards comission od FPO
-Webley v Buxton; generally, D only charged for attempt where there is a failure to successfully commit offence
what happened/ is the legal principle in Webley. Buxton
-generally, D only charged for attempt where there is a failure to successfully commit an offence
what happens if D commits a different principal, during an attempt
-may be charged with completed principle offence and attemoted principle offence
does the reason of failure to complete a principal offence matter
no , it is irrelevant
where is AR for attempts found
s.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981
-D must do act which is more than merely preparatory
where are exceptions for attempts found
s.1(4) Criminal Attempts Act 1981
(a) attempting conspiracy
(b)attempting complicity
(c)summary only offences + attempting to help offender after comission of crime + omissions (unless there is a legal duty to act
what is the meaning of more than merely preparatory
-undefined in statute
-‘natural meaning’ (Jones(1990))
what is the legal principle in Jones 1990
-more than merely prepatory takes on its ‘natural meaning’
how is ‘more than merely preparatory’ applied after the Criminal Attempts Act (4 cases)
-too narrowly
-eg R v Robinson (fake burglary), R v Campbell (post office), R v Geddes (boys toilet), R v K (2009)(laptop)
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Gallefer
-D tried to distact race dogs to declare no race and reclaim financial stake
-conv quashed as not sufficient proximity to crime (still had to ask for money back)
-had to ‘embark on the crime proper’
what happened/ is the legal principle in
-D arrested outside post office BEFORE robbery, police tipped off
-conv quashed, not MTMP
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Geddes
-D found in boys toilet with knife
-conv quashed bc no contact with child
-not MTMP
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v K (2009)
-D asked 6yo if he wanted to come watch porn on office laptop
-conv quashed as child not led to laptop
-not MTMP
give 3 cases where ‘more than merely preparatory’ was not applied narrowly
-R v Jones (1990); D pointed gun at V with catch on –> gun thrown out window + MTMP
-R v Dagnall; physical confrontation sufficient for attempted rape
-R v Tosti; D charged for attempted burglary bc found inspecting barn lock and metal cutting equipment in car
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Jones (1990)
-D had affair with woman, she refused to continue
-D pointed gun at V with catch on but V threw it out window
-MTMP
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Dagnall
-police intervened on D attempting to rape V but no undressing or penetration
-physical confrontation sufficient for attempted rape
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Tosti
-R v Tosti; D charged for attempted burglary bc found inspecting barn lock and metal cutting equipment in car
what are the two types of impossible attempts
-legal impossibility
-factual impossibility
what is legal impossibility + give case example
-D attempts something that isnt a crime and has no liability for attempts
-Taafe; D thought he was importing currency not drugs
what happened/ is the legal principle in Taafe
-legal impossibility
-D thought he was importing currency not frugs
what is factual impossibility (s.1(2)CAA
-future principle offence exists in law but circumstances surrounding attempt mean it cannot come about
where is the law for factual possibility found + give case
-s.1(2); liable for factual impossibility if D goes beyond MTMP on the facts as D subjectively believed them to be towards committing a valid future principle offence
-R v Shivpuri; immaterial D didnt know exact nature, still prohibited importation
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Shivpuri
-D thought that he was a drugs courier for legal snuff not heroin
-immaterial D didnt know exact nature of substance he still dealt with prohibited importation
where is the MR for attempts liability found
s.1(1); D acts with intent to commit an offence
-this requires ulterior intent to commit future principal offence (acting with intent of bringing about specififc consequence(AR of crime))
what does attempts liability require of MR
-D must act with full intention to complete future principal offence
-eg attempt to cause ABH requires intent to cause ABH
what is the legal principle in Walker v Hayes
-ulterior intent can be either direct or indirect
is conditional intent sufficient for attempts? 2 cases
-conditional intent is still intent to steal (A-G’s Ref (No 1 and 2 of 1979) unless its to steal a specific item (Husseyn 1977(
what happened/ is the legal principle of A-G’s Ref (No1 and 2 of 1979)
-CA held attempted burglary did not require intent to burgle specific things
-conditional intent to steal is still intent to steal
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Husseyn
-D not convicted as D didnt intend to steal anything specific
-box was labelled ‘valuable’
what are the cases for possible and impossible attempts
-Khan - possible
-Pace and Rogers - impossible
what happened/ is the legal principle in Khan(1990)
-D said he couldnt care less about girls consent
-MR of rape requires intending conduct element(penetration) but D was reckless regarding lack of consent
-requiring intent for a circ element for attempted crime would make an attempt harder to satisfy than the principle pffence
-Held that D can be liable for an attempt if intending conduct and result element of AR of future principle offence and MR for the circ element mirrors that stipulated by the future principle offence
what happened/ is the legal principle in Pace and Rogers
-undercover police sold ‘stolen’ scrap metal to Ds then, impossible as wasnt stolen was police property
-charge’s circ element for MR= D must know/ suspect property is criminal property
-Khan not followed; held to attempt this crime D must intend every element of AR for future principal offence
is there a defence of withdrawal for attempts liability
-no
