Inchoate Crimes Attempt Flashcards
HMA v Camerons 1911
PERPETRATION THEORY. At a trail of the indictment charging two panels with attempted fraud on an insurance company, no evidence was let to show that the claim which bore to be signed by her. Held, that in spite of this the jury were entitled to convict if they believed from other evidence that the attempted fraud had got beyond the stage of preparation (a question of fact for the jury to determine in each case) - to perpetration.
Guthrie v Friel 1992
PERPETRATION THEORY. The accused had not moved from preparation to perpetration per s 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which makes it an offence to drive or attempt to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place. He was in car, seatbelt on, engine started and the headlights turn on. Upon appeal, the accused argues that he had actually not moved from preparing to drive to actually driving, so the facts indicate that, like even though the engine was running and the headlights were on, he had not actually taken the handbrake off. Held that the accused’s action might show that he was preparing to drive but fell short of establishing that he was attempting to drive; and appeal allowed, conviction quashed, case remitted
Burns v Allan 1987
PERPETRATION THEORY. Held, that an alarm system is an integral part of the security and therefore constitutes attempted housebreaking with intent to steal when done with intent to enter and steal - relevant sufficient evidence, appeal refused.
Barret v Allan 1986
IRREVOCABILITY. The accused was drunken football fan who joined the queue and was attempting to enter football stadium whilst drunk, which was a breach of statute. The question was could he have still changed his mind before reaching the turnstile? appeal refused
HMA v Baxter 1908
IRREVOCABILITY. An indictment charged that, E. R. having become pregnant, the panel did, in order to cause her to abort, procure certain drugs and send them by post to a third person along with a letter containing instructions for administering the drugs, and that he did this in order to procure the abortion of the said E. R., and did thus attempt to procure abortion.
Held that the indictment was irrelevant.
Janet Ramage 1825
LAST ACT THEORY; poison in teapot;
Samuel Tumbleson (1863) 4 Irv 426
LAST ACT THEORY; poisoned oatmeal, was held that the victim did not actually need to eat, the victim did not to have eat it for a crime of attempted murder
Cawthorne v HMA 1968
The man fired a rile to the room, knowing that there were people. He was charged with attempted murder. At the trail the judge directed the jury that the accused was acting with ‘utter and wicked recklessness as to the consequences of his act’. The accused was convicted. The appeal court held that the direction to the jury was correct. It was unnecessary to prove that the accused intended to kill. The mens rea of murder was proved by reckless disregard of the consequences/outcome of his act. Mens rea for attempted crime is the same as in the complete crime.
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 s 294
makes it a criminal act to attempt to commit any crime
Docherty v Brown 1996
Attempting to sell the drugs which were not drugs. Hence attempting somethin impossible. It is not necessary to consider if the completed crime was impossible to complete. The question is if he possessed mens rea of the crime. Appeal refused.
