Inchoate offences

Question 1

Attempt, statute:

Answer 1

Criminal Attempts Act 1981

Question 2

Attempt, actus reus elements:

Answer 2

Liability for attempt based on a demarcation between planning/preparation and embarkation on an active endeavour to commit an offence. Attempt requires that the defendant has done something more than merely preparatory.
Initial test for above was proximity between the defendant’s act and the completed offence. Required that final act of preparation completed: “crossed the Rubicon and burned his boats” - Stonehouse [1978].

Question 3

More than merely preparatory, less emphasis on proximity cases:

Answer 3

R v Griffen: defendant planned to remove children from father’s custody. Booked ferry tickets and told school she would collect them for the dentist. Conviction for attempting to abduct children upheld, even though apprehended before collection.

R v Geddes: the defendant in school toilets without lawful reason, with masking tape and a knife in his possession.
Conviction overturned because he had not moved beyond preparation; in a position where he could commit, but had not started to do so.

Question 4

Principle established in Geddes and Griffen:

Answer 4

‘More than merely preparatory’ is characterised not by physical conduct but in a psychological commitment to the commission of the substantive offence. Geddes may not have continued to complete the substantive offence, whereas Griffen was implementing her plan but was interrupted before completion.
Geddes within reach of children but Griffen not, however it demonstrates the shift from the ‘final act’ proximity approach to a focus on the psychological commitment of the defendant to completing the offence.

Question 5

Conspiracy, statutory, statute and elements:

Answer 5

Criminal Law Act 1977.
Actus reus: agreement, between parties, specified course of conduct.
Mens rea: intention to be party to an agreement, intention that the substantive offence be carried out by one of the conspirators.

Question 6

Conspiracy, actus reus facts and case:

Answer 6

Course of conduct agreed between the parties must be one that would necessarily amount to an offence by one of the conspirators if the plan was carried to fruition.

R v Jackson [1985]: defendant and another agreed to shoot third man in the leg, if he was convicted for leniency in sentencing. Defendant appealed because he had planned something that might never happen. CoA rejected this argument and held that a plan to commit an offence if it was necessary was still a plan to commit an offence.

Question 7

Conspiracy, mens rea facts and case:

Answer 7

All conspirators must intend to agree to commit the offence. Not necessary for all to participate in act, provided it is intended that at least one of them will do so. Does not have to be intention on each that it should be committed: sufficient that there was knowledge that the course of conduct would amount to the commission of the offence and intention to play some part in furtherance of the conduct.

R v Saik [2006]: appellant found to be undertaking financial transactions, conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime. He said he did not know for sure it was.
HoL allowed appeal, confirmed that the defendant must have the intention or knowledge in relation to every element of the planned offence.

Question 8

Assissting/encouraging:

Answer 8

1. Intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence (44);
2. encouraging or assisting an offence believing that it will be committed (45);
3. encouraging or assisting offences believing that one or more will be committed (46).

Question 9

R v Shivpuri:

Answer 9

Attempt, arrested with a suitcase he confessed to be drugs but upon analysis was just vegetables.
Even if factually impossible, still liable for an attempt.

Question 10

Inchoate offences:

Answer 10

An offence that is not yet complete.