Chapter 18: Inchoate offences (attempt)

Question 1

What is the Act for inchoate offences

Answer 1

Criminal Attempts Act 1981

Question 2

What kind of crime is inchoate offences?

Answer 2

Conduct crime

Question 3

What is the charge of inchoate offences?

Answer 3

Section 1(2) and 1(3) CAA 1981

Question 4

What is the element for AR for attempt?

Answer 4

“An act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence…”

Question 5

can attempt be done by negative act (omissions)?

Answer 5

No, attempt can only be done through positive act

Question 6

What did Stephen suggest in clarifying attempt in his book ‘Stephen’s Digest of the Criminal Law (9th Edition)’

Answer 6

“… An attempt to commit a crime as an act done with intent to commit that crime and forming part of a series of which would constitute its actual commission, if it were not interrupted.”

Question 7

What case created the ‘proximity’ test?

Answer 7

R v Eagleton [1855]

Question 8

What is the ‘proximity’ test?

Answer 8

• An act which remotely (too far) leads towards the commission of the offence is not to be considered as attempts to commit it
• But acts immediately connected with it are
• Courts were to identify the last act performed by the accused

Question 9

What were the problems/issues with the ‘proximity’ test?

Answer 9

• Courts were construing the test restrictively and were strained by the facts to identify the last act performed by the accused
• But If the act, was so close to the actual commission of the offence. (Then it would be valid AR)

Note: this made judges biased towards the defendants, which was not doing justice for the people

Question 10

What was the “test”/term used in the new case to identify AR?

Answer 10

“more than merely preparatory towards the commission”

Question 11

What was the case that ‘created’/stated this element?

‘more than merely preparatory’ test

Answer 11

R v Gulleffer [1987]

Question 12

What does it mean to be “more than merely preparatory towards the commission”

Answer 12

• when the accused was “on the job” as opposed to merely preparing for it
• He must have embarked on the crime proper

Question 13

R v Gulleffer [1987]

Answer 13

Facts

1. D climbed onto a greyhound racetrack in an attempt to stop a race
2. The dog on which he had placed a £18 bet was losing and he had hoped to recover his stake by stopping the race, the stewards decided not to stop the race
3. D was charged with attempting to steal the £18 from the bookmaker under s1(1) and s1(4) Criminal Attempts Act 1981

Held

1. COA allowed the appeal (acquitted)
2. D had not committed acts which were more than merely preparatory to the offence of theft

Question 14

What are other cases that use “more than merely preparatory towards the commission”

Answer 14

1. R v Jones
2. R v Geddes
3. R v Tosti
4. R v Campbell [1991]

R v Campbell (important)

Question 15

R v Jones [1990]

Answer 15

Facts

1. D was convicted for attempted murder
2. Victim managed to grab the gun and escape from the car

Held

1. Convicted, he had not cross the ‘half-way point’

Takeaway

1. D were face 2 face (both were in the scene of the crime)
2. D had a weapon present

Question 16

R v Geddes [1996]

Answer 16

Facts

1. D was equipped with a rucksack in which there was a kitchen knife, rope and masking tape
2. He gained access to the boy’s lavatory in a school

Held

1. Not liable

Takeaway/ratio

1. Weapons/tools were present
2. Although the D and V were not in the same scene of the crime (has to be both parties present in the scenario)

Acquitted

Question 17

R v Campbell [1991]

What does section 1 for CAA 1981 state?

Answer 17

Facts

1. Tony Campbell (C) was arrested after loitering outside a post office, wearing sunglasses and carrying something heavy, after police had been informed that a robbery was going to take place.
2. C had been waiting outside the post office, left, and then returned 30 minutes later, at which point he was arrested and discovered to have in his possession a gun and a demand note
3. C was convicted of attempted robbery and appealed

Held

1. Appeal was allowed (no charge)
2. Although C had intended to rob the post office, his acts were indicative (a sign) of mere preparation.
3. Although C had not even gone inside the post office where his offence was to be committed, making it doubtful whether he had performed an act which could properly be said to be an attempt

Takeaway

1. A judge must restrict himself to directing a jury to the definition of attempt under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981
2. The test for attempt under section 1 of the CAA 1981 is:
   1) Whether the defendant intended to commit the crime in question; and
   2) The defendant had done an act which was more than merely preparatory to committing the offence
3. The law of attempt must be applied on a case-by-case basis (varies)

Question 18

How is AR decided?

Answer 18

Matter/question is of the duty of the jury to decide

Question 19

What is the section that says it is a matter for the jury to decide AR

Answer 19

Section 4(3)

1. The function of the trial judges to determine whether sufficient evidence has been tendered to show that the accused had done an act more than merely preparatory towards the commission of the offence
2. If there is not, then the matter is withdrawn from the jury and the accused is acquitted of the attempted charge
3. However, if sufficient evidence had been tendered then the duty is on the jury to determine whether the accused had committed the AR of the offence

Question 20

What is the MR for enchoate offences (attempt)? What is the case that shows this?

Answer 20

‘Intention’ is the same as common law (R v Pearman [1984])

Question 21

What type of intent crime is attempt?

Answer 21

specific intent crime (SIC)

Question 22

What is the intention for attempted murder? What is the case that shows this?

Answer 22

• Intention to kill suffices
• Intention to cause GBH does not suffice for attempt

This was seen in R v Whybrow [1951]

Question 23

Can recklessness be charged for attempt? What is the case that supports this?

Answer 23

No, as per R v O’Toole [1987]

Question 24

What are the 3 impossible situations that used to not be able to be charged for attempt

Now even impossible attempts are liable

Answer 24

1. Physical impossibility
2. Impossibility arising from inadequacy of means
3. Legal impossibility

Question 25

What has reapealed the 3 situations for impossible attempts? What does it state?

Answer 25

Section 1(2) and section 1(3) state that Impossibility, even though impossible to kill someone, they are still liable

Question 26

Section 1(2) of the CAA 1981

Answer 26

A person may be guilty of attempting to commit an offence to which this section applies even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible

Question 27

Section 1(3) of the CAA 1981

Answer 27

In a case where -

1. (a) Apart from this subsection a person’s intention would not be regarded as having a mounted to an intent the commitment offence; but
2. (b) if the facts of the case has been as he believed them to be, his intention would be so regarded, then, for the purpose of Subsection (1) above, he shall be regarded as having an intent to commit that offence

Question 28

What are the 2 cases that regard the section 1(2) and (3)

Answer 28

• Anderton v Ryan [1985]
• R v Shivpuri [1987] AC 1

Shivpuri overruled Anderton

Question 29

Anderton v Ryan [1985]

Answer 29

Facts

1. D thought he was handling stolen goods
2. It was not stolen goods

Held

1. Not liable/convicted

Overruled by Shivpuiri in 1987 (2 years later)

Question 30

R v Shivpuri [1987] AC 1

Answer 30

Facts

1. D said he was dealing with prohibited drugs
2. But it was not prohibited drugs

Held

1. D was liable

Takeaway

1. Liable even though it was impossible to kill the V
2. Overruled Anderton v Ryan