Criminal - Attempts

Question 0

Comer v Bloomfield compared to DPP v Stonehouse

Answer 0

Pre Act law

Need last act remaining only to be an attempt.
In Comer - dumped own van, acquired about insurance (could have filled forms still)
In Stonehouse - faked own death (had done all acts required by him)

Question 1

R v Jones

Answer 1

Look at natural meaning of statute and do not look back to earlier cases (supported by Campbell)

R v Boyle - contrary. Be guided by preAct cases but they are not binding (supported by Rowley).

= contradictory law.

Question 2

Jones compared to Gullefer

Answer 2

Post Act law

Behaviour needs to be only very close to last act but still more than merely preparatory.

in Jones - shotgun in car pointing at driver (attempt)
In Gullefer - greyhound race, jumped on track, did not collect stake money. (not attempt)

Question 3

Geddes compared to Tosti

Answer 3

Post Act Law

Must have moved from planning to execution of offence

In Geddes - waiting to kidnap in school lavatory, but not confronted anyone (not attempt)
In Tosti - examining paddlock at barn (attempt)

Question 4

Mason compared to Moore

Answer 4

Post Act law

Look at full offence!

In Mason - full offence driving, only opened door, not moving (no attempt)
In Moore - needed to be sufficiently close to the final act to be properly regarded as part of the execution of the plan and be considered an attempt. Covers steps immediately proceeding the final act necessary to bring about the commission of the intended offence

Question 5

Pearman

Answer 5

Oblique intent may be sufficient but has never been used

May be possible to infer in limited circumstances

Question 6

AG ref 3 of 1992

Answer 6

For criminal damage s1(2) - enough to be reckless as to endangerment of life.

If D has the intention for any missing physical elements, the MR needed beyond that is exactly the same as for the completed offence.

Question 7

Khan

Answer 7

Recklessness as to the circumstances is sufficient to convict
But intent as to consequences is needed.

Rape case

Question 8

Haughton v Smith

Answer 8

Reason for Act to reverse this case.

Makes D liable to conviction regardless of type of impossibility preventing him committing the full offence.

3 types - insufficiency of means, factual impossibility, legal impossibility

Question 9

Shivpuri

Answer 9

Could not be guilty as no AR for full offence (snuff not drugs).

Intended to commit offence and performed a more than preparatory act. Even though impossible to commit full offence - guilty of attempt.

Question 10

Taaffe

Answer 10

Need corresponding MR and AR.

(currency not drug smuggling = no corresponding MR