Inchoate offences: attempts Flashcards
which act defines an attempt?
criminal attempts act 1981 S1(1)
what is the definition of an attempt
if with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence.
what is the AR and MR of an attempt
AR- D does an act which is more than merely preparatory
MR- intent to commit the offence
explain the case of Holt and Lee
F: 2 people in a restaurant made a plan to avoid paying for the bill by telling the waiter they had already paid another waiter and were overheard by an off-duty police officer
R: they had gone far enough with their plan to be seen as doing an act which is more than preparatory and intended to induce the restaurant to forego payment.
explain the case of campbell
F: D was outside a post office with an imitation gun, wearing sunglasses with a threatening note in his pocket
R: it is for the judge to come to the conclusion whether or not the crown at the end of it’s case had bought before the court evidence which properly and safely can be left to the jury to consider.
his conviction for attempted robbery was quashed.
what did the law commission say about the AR of attempts
that there is no ‘magic formula’ for the jury when deciding if the D’s actions were more than merely preparatory
what was the outcome of White
found guilty for attempted murder as he put poison in his mother’s tea but she died of other causes.
what is the ratio of Gullefer and recall the 2 part test created as a result
R: his conviction for attempting to steal was quashed.
- forms part of a series of acts which would constitute the actual commission of the offence were it not interrupted
- the series of acts begins when the merely preparatory acts come to an end and D embarks on the crime proper.
explain the case Geddes
F: D was found in a boy’s toilet at a school. He ran off when challenged by a teacher but he left behind a large bag containing a large knife, a roll of tape and a rope.
R: convicted of attempted false imprisonment which was overturned on appeal because he had not yet approached his victim.
in the case of Geddes what were the 2 questions asked by the CoA
1) had the accused moved from planning or preparation to execution or implementation?
2) had the accused done an act showing that he was actually trying to commit the full offence or had he only got as far as getting ready or putting himself in a position or equipping himself to do so.
explain the case of Tosti
F: D intending to burgle premises, took metal cutting equipment with him and hid it behind a nearby hedge, he then examined the padlock on the door, he didn’t damage the padlock.
H: he as found guilty of attempted burglary.
what 2 elements make up merely preparatory
- D’s acts are part of a series of events which would constitute the offence if not interrupted.
- D has ‘embarked on the crime proper’
why did Shivpuri overrule anderton v ryan
used in the 1966 practice statement to overrule the HL decision in A v R which had provided the defence of impossibility for attempts
explain the case of Shivpuri
F: D had bought a substance he believed to be heroin into the country in fact it was vegetable matter.
H: D can be guilty of an offence even if it would be factually or legally impossible to commit for any reason.
explain the case of Logdon
F: D pointed an imitation gun at a woman in jest, she was terrified
H: even though D would not have been able to carry out his threat as long as V feared immediate and unlawful force (AR) D could be reckless as to V apprehending the force (MR)
what is different about the MR for attempts
the D normally must have the same intention as would be required for the full offence
if the prosecution can’t prove intention then the defendant is not guilty of attempt.
what was decided in Millard and Vernon
intention is required even if recklessness would be enough for the principle offence
what must the prosecution prove for attempted murder
they must prove an intention to kill, to cause GBH is not enough for attempted murder
explain the case of Whybrow
F: D wired up his wife’s bath and caused her to have an electric shock
H: for attempted murder the prosecution must prove an intention to kill (intention to cause GBH isn’t enough for attempted murder, it must be to kill)
what does Lord Goddard say about intention
“Intention is the principle ingredient of the crime”
what was established in R v Walker and Hayles
oblique intention can also be used
what was held in the case of Woolin
the result is a virtually certain and D knows this.
explain the case of pace and rogers 2014
F: police had mounted an operation to crack down on the sale of stolen scrap metal. they offered the goods indicating it was ‘a bit naughty’. D’s purchased the goods
H: allowing their appeal CoA held that the MR for attempt was to commit all the elements of the offence. the principle offence was only committed where the property really was criminal property (suspicion that the goods were stolen was not enough)
