Criminal law — Inchoate offences Flashcards
s.1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981
“If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a person does an a act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence.”
For attempts, which is done first? The men’s rea or the actus reus?
The MR. This is because the AR is really broad and the MR is concerned with the D’s state of mind.
E.G if I put a substance II believe to be deadly poison in your tea but it turns out to be sugar I’ve committed attempted under and the AR may be any act that is more than merely prepatory.
Intent for attempts
- The D must intend (direct intent - Mohammed) the act.
- The D must also have intentions as to the criminal consequence. This can be direct intent or oblique intent.
CAA 1981 s.1(2) — Attempts can be committed even where an offence is..
Impossible. Attempts can be committed even where an offence is impossible.
E.G. I look in a bag intending to take money if it’s there. But it’s empty— it’s still attempted theft.
Anderton v Ryan
Mrs Ryan bought a video recorder cheaply that she thought was stole. She was found not guilty on the basis that the video recorders was not in fact stolen.
The court found s.1(2). didn’t apply. This was overruled in Shivpuri.
R v Shivpuri
D agreed to receive a suitcase she thought contained prohibited drugs. Infraction it didn’t. She’s as still convicted of attempting to be knowingly concerned in dealing with prohibited drugs.
What is the actus reus in attempts?
The act must be “going beyond mere preparation.”
What is beyond merely preparatory?
- Whether D’sa ct was the last act necessary (e.g in an
attempted murder D actually shot the victim) Stonehouse. - Is D’s act proximate to the commission off the full offence
- Is D’s act one of a series that would lead to a crime if uninterrupted. Gullefer (embarked on the crime proper?)
- Is D’s act immediately connected with the substantive offence
Mason v DPP (2009)
D was stopped opening his car door whilst intoxicated. Was he attempting to drink drive?
Held— No. Opening the door was not more than merely preparatory.
Geddes (1996)
A boy was found in the toilets of a school (that was not his) equipped in such a way to strongly suggest he intended kidnapping. Was he guilty of attempted kidnapping?
Held— No. There is a difference between “trying to commit an offence”. He had only got himself ready to put himself in a position to do so.
Campbell (1991)
Police arrested a man who approached the door of a post office (within a metre) with an imitation gun with intent to commit robbery.
Held— No. There was no evidence that his acts were more than “merely preparatory.”
Jones
D attempted to murder V. He bought a shotgun, sawed off the end and test fired it. Later he climbed into the back of V’s car and told him to drive to a secluded place. D removed the shotgun from his bag and pointed it at V. The safety catch of gun was on. V grabbed the gun and threw it out the window and made good his escape.
Held— Guilty.
D must come close to committing the full offence but there may be some acts left to perform before the substantive offence is committed.
What is the rule on successful attempts?
They can still be charged as attempts s.6(4)CAA 1981. THough it is more likely that it will be charged as the actual offence. This doesn’t apply to summary offences.
