Criminal Attempts - Case Study Questions Flashcards
R v Campbell 1991
D planned to rob a post office. He drove to the post office on a motorcycle then walked towards the post office wearing a motorcycle helmet. D carried an imitation gun and had a threatening note in his pocket, which he planned to hand over to the cashier. D was arrested before he entered the post office.
Explain in your own words if D is guilty of attempt robbery?
D had not ‘embarked on the crime proper’, he had not entered the post office, he had not attempted to remove the imitation firearm, he was not wearing a disguise, and his acts were “merely preparatory” NOT MORE than merely preparatory. There are other offences to think of here but not criminal attempts.
Davey v Lee 1967
A policeman patrolling the outside of an electricity compound fence, heard some noise and saw two males by the fence, these males will be referred to as E and E. 20 minutes later a passer-by saw a van without lights parked up 1/2 a mile away from the site. The van was stopped by police after approximately 3 hours, 14 miles away from the site, E and E were in it. The police searched the males and found wire cutters on the driver. E and E were asked to come to the police station to speak with police and as they drove off to the police station, threw something out of the van window. The next day bolt cutters were found in the area the discarded item was seen to be thrown. The area of the fence E and E were originally seen to be stood by a police officer was also found to have been cut.
Explain in your own words if E and E are guilty of attempting to steal a quantity of metal?
Both males charged with attempting to steal a quantity of metal. Justices were satisfied on the evidence that the defendants had intended to steal copper and that they had been interrupted when they had very nearly completed the last steps of gaining access to the compound where they would carry out their intention. An act was done that was a step towards the commission of the specific crime.
R v Geddes 1996
The defendant had been seen by a teacher in the boys’ toilets of a school. He had no connection with the school and no right to be there. He had a rucksack with him. A police officer saw him and shouted to him, but he left. In a cubicle in the lavatory block there was a cider can which had belonged to the defendant. His rucksack was found in some bushes, containing a large kitchen knife, rope and a roll of masking tape. The defendant was arrested and identified by the teacher and some pupils.
Explain in your own words whether the defendant is guilty of attempted false imprisonment?
He was charged with attempted false imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the presence of the cider can showed that the defendant had been inside a toilet cubicle, and that the contents of the rucksack could have been used to catch and restrain a boy entering the lavatory. The defendant was convicted.
The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant’s appeal. It held that the line of demarcation between acts which were merely preparatory and acts which might amount to an attempt was not always clear or easy to recognise. There was no rule of thumb test, and there must always be an exercise of judgment based on the particular facts of the case. It was an accurate paraphrase of the statutory test to ask whether the available evidence could show that he had done an act and had actually tried to commit the offence in question, or whether he had only got ready / put himself in a position / equipped himself to do so.
In the present case there was not much room for doubt about the defendant’s intention, and the evidence showed that he had made preparations, had equipped himself, had got ready, had put himself in a position to commit the offence charged - but he had never had any contact or communication with any pupil at the school. On the facts of the case the evidence was not sufficient in law to support a finding that the defendant had done an act which was more than merely preparatory to wrongfully imprisoning a person unknown.
This is a very interesting and a clear example of the absolute requirement to show the difference between being able to prove attempting an act and preparing an act. The above is all demonstrating his ‘merely preparatory’ acts.
R v Shivpuri 1987
F attempted to deal and harbour drugs. He believed he might be dealing with a prohibited drug such as cannabis or heroin, whereas in fact the substance was harmless powdered vegetable matter, snuff or cabbage.
Explain in your own words whether F has committed an offence of Attempted drug dealing Class A and/or B?
The House of Lords ruled: any attempt to commit an offence carries liability if D:
intended to carry out the substantive offence and
did an act that was more than merely preparatory,
even though completion was impossible.
In this case the suspect couldn’t commit the original offence (as they weren’t drugs) but could attempt to commit the original offence according to the Criminal Attempts Act.
Think about the offence of possession of drugs - the drug needs to be a controlled drug for the offence to be complete. Therefore, F could not have been found guilty of possession with intent to supply the drugs as they were not controlled drugs. HOWEVER, for the criminal attempts act the drug does not need to be a controlled drug therefore F can be found guilty of attempting to deal/harbour drugs.
JONES decides to break into a local warehouse to steal some mobile phones. He selected a number of tools from his shed, including a crowbar. He drove to the warehouse and parked nearby. He went to a side door and started trying to force the door open with the crowbar. A security guard hears the noise and goes to investigate. JONES hears him approaching and runs off. When, if at all, does JONES commit attempted burglary?
When he tries to force open the door.
COLE sees WHITEHEAD walking through a crowded train station and decides to try and steal his wallet from his coat pocket. COLE approaches WHITEHEAD from behind and puts his hand in his coat pocket. A passer-by bumps into COLE and knocks his hand away before he can try and take anything. WHITEHEAD walks away, unaware of anything that has just happened. WHITEHEAD had left his wallet at home and the pocket was empty. When, if at all, does COLE commit attempted theft?
When he puts his hand into WHITEHEAD’s pocket.
CORRECT: The fact that the pocket is empty is irrelevant, under the Criminal Attempts Act, you can still attempt the impossible (eg, trying to smash a reinforced glass window).
INCORRECT: The correct answer is “When he puts his hand into WHITEHEAD’s pocket.
THOMPSON is in a pub and very drunk. She sees STEWART, who has started going out with her ex-partner. THOMPSON is very angry with STEWART and decides to push her, with the intent of causing her to spill her drink. She walked up behind STEWART and went to push her. However, THOMPSON was so drunk that she just fell over without making any contact. STEWART had her back to the whole incident and was not aware of what had just happened. When, if at all, does THOMPSON commit the offence of attempted battery?
She cannot attempt battery as it is is a summary only offence and therefore cannot be attempted.
John throws a stone at a crowd, intending to injure someone. It misses them, unexpectedly bounces, and breaks a window. What, if any, offence has likely been committed?
CORRECT: Yes, attempted ABH has likely been committed as John intended to throw the stone to injure someone. His intention was not to break the window. See R v Pembliton 1874 for the stated case example.
INCORRECT: John did not intend or attempt to break the window and could not foresee this happening, therefore, he did not commit an offence of criminal damage. See R v Pembliton 1874 for the stated case example.
