Inchoate Offences

Question 1

DPP v Doot

Answer 1

Ratio: For conspiracy, there is no need for the parties to have taken steps to carry out their agreement.

Question 2

DPP v Nock

Answer 2

Ratio: For conspiracy, there is no need for all the details to have been agreed but they must have done beyond merely discussing it.

Question 3

R v Walker

Answer 3

Ratio: For conspiracy, there must be more than a discussion.

Question 4

R v Chrastny

Answer 4

Ratio: If there is a third party, D and D’s spouse can be guilty of conspiracy.

Question 5

R v Anderson

Answer 5

Ratio: 1. It is sufficient for D to play any part in the conspiracy, even if he thinks the offence won’t succeed. 2. Suggests an alternative form of MR - must be intention to play a part in carrying out the agreement. 3. If a crime is feasible but the defendant is incompetent or chooses an impossible method, this is not a defence.

Facts: D had agreed to supply a fellow prisoner with cutting materials to help him escape. He did not succeed in doing so as he was injured shortly after leaving prison. D argued that he never intended the plan to be carried out and never believed it could succeed. HoL held that this was irrelevant and he was convicted.

THIS CASE IS UNLIKELY TO BE FOLLOWED AS IT IS WRONG.

Question 6

R v McPhillips

Answer 6

Ratio: The MR for conspiracy is that the defendant intends that the offence will be committed.

Facts: D had joined a conspiracy to plant a bomb but planned to call in a warning and so was not guilty of conspiracy as he did not intend the offence to be committed.

Question 7

R v Edwards

Answer 7

Ratio: The MR for conspiracy is that the defendant intends that the offence will be committed.

Facts: D agreed to supply amphetamines but there was evidence that he did not actually intend to do so and so he was not guilty.

Question 8

R v Ashton

Answer 8

Ratio: The MR for conspiracy is that the defendant intends that the offence will be committed.

Facts: A and W were charged with conspiracy to murder. W recruited A to find someone to kill C. The person A found went to the police. A said he did not intend to carry out the agreement and so was not found guilty.

Question 9

Yip Chiu-Cheung v R

Answer 9

Ratio: Privy Council has also not followed Anderson.

Facts: The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to traffic heroin. Conspiracy concerned an agreement between Y and an undercover drug enforcement agent. Y argued the agent could not be a co-conspirator as he lacked the MR for the offence. Court held that it is the intention to carry out the crime that constituted the MR.

Question 10

R v Siracusa

Answer 10

Ratio: Interpreted Anderson broadly to include situations where D agrees that someone else should carry out the offence.

Question 11

R v Jackson

Answer 11

Ratio: Conditional intent is sufficient to form the MR for conspiracy.

Question 12

R v Gullefer

Answer 12

Ratio: An attempt begins when the merely preparatory acts come to an end and the defendant embarks on the crime proper or the actual commission of the offence.

Facts: Trying to stop a dog race so bets would be called off is a merely preparatory offence.

Question 13

R v Jones

Answer 13

Ratio: Getting into the victim’s car and pointing a gun constitutes embarking on the crime proper.

Question 14

R v Tosti

Answer 14

Ratio: Inspecting locks on properties and running off when approached constitutes embarking on the crime proper.

Question 15

R v Geddes

Answer 15

Ratio: Trespassing with a knife and hiding in the boys’ toilets is a merely preparatory act.

Question 16

R v Campbell

Answer 16

Ratio: Carrying a gun, bag and ransom note is a merely preparatory act.

Question 17

R v Whybrow

Answer 17

Ratio: The MR for conspiracy is intention to bring about the consequences required for the full offence.

Facts: MR for attempted murder is intention to kill.

Question 18

R v Toole

Answer 18

Ratio: If the substantive MR is intention or recklessness as to the AR, to convict of attempt, proof of intention is required.

Facts: The charge was arson - necessary to show and intention to damage property by fire.

Question 19

R v Walker and Hayles

Answer 19

Ratio: Just may infer intention for attempt if they are satisfied that the defendant foresaw the result as a virtual certainty.

Question 20

A-G’s Ref (No 3 of 1992)

Answer 20

Ratio: Where there are multiple elements of MR, the MR for attempt is to achieve what is missing from the AR, plus MR for the full offence.

Facts: Respondents were in a car from which a lighted petrol bomb was thrown at an occupied car, beside a pavement on which persons were standing. The bomb passed over the car and hit a wall adjacent to the pavement. The wall was not damaged. They were charged with aggravated criminal arson. MR for full offence is intention or recklessness as to damaging property and intention or recklessness as to endangering life. The AR is damaging property. Court of appeal held that for attempt, it is only necessary to prove intent to achieve what is missing from the AR, recklessness as to endangering life was sufficient.

Question 21

A-G’s Ref (Nos 1 and 2 of 1979)

Answer 21

Ratio: Conditional intent is sufficient for attempt.

Question 22

R v Taafe

Answer 22

Ratio: Cannot be convicted for a non-existent crime.

Facts: Taafe was importing illegal drugs into the UK. He believed that the bag contained currency and that importing currency was illegal. He was not convicted of an attempt to import currency as no such offence exists.

Question 23

R v Shivpuri

Answer 23

Ratio: Impossibility in fact is not a defence to attempt or conspiracy.

Facts: D was arrested with a suitcase and admitted it contained illegal drugs. It turned out the suitcase did not contain drugs. He was convicted anyway.