Mens Rea of attempt&Attempting the impossible

Question 1

For an attempt, what must the defendant normally have?

Answer 1

must normally have the same intention as would be required for the full offence.

Question 2

What would happen if the prosecution could not prove D had the intention?

Answer 2

then D is not guilty of the attempt

Question 3

Which case shows that if the prosecution could not prove D had intention then D is not guilty of the attempt?

Answer 3

Easom 1971

Question 4

In what case did the courts make a similar decision to that in Easom that if the prosecution could not prove that D had intention then D is not guilty of an attempt?

Answer 4

Husseyn 1977

Question 5

What happened in the case of Husseyn 1977?

Answer 5

D and another man were loitering near the back of a van. D was convicted of attempting to steal some sub aqua equipment in the van. COA quashed conviction

Question 6

D and another man were loitering near the back of a van. D was convicted of attempting to steal some sub aqua equipment in the van. COA quashed conviction
What case is this?

Answer 6

Husseyn 1977

Question 7

What happened in the case of Easom 1971?

Answer 7

D picked up a womans handbag, looked through it then put it back on the floor without removing anything. Conviction for theft was quashed as there was no evidence than D intended to permanently deprive the owner of the bag.

Question 8

D picked up a womans handbag, looked through it then put it back on the floor without removing anything. Conviction for theft was quashed as there was no evidence than D intended to permanently deprive the owner of the bag.
What case is this?

Answer 8

Easom 1971

Question 9

Why can the decisions by the COA be criticised in Easom 1971 and Husseyn 1977?

Answer 9

this is because surely the defendant intended to steal something and and so the fact they did not find anything worth stealing should not impact on their guilt for attempting to steal

Question 10

Which case resolved the problems found in Easom 1971 and Husseyn 1977?

Answer 10

Attorneys General Reference 1979

Question 11

What happened in the case of Attorneys General Rederence 1979 which resolved the problems found in Easom 1971 and Husseyn 1977?

Answer 11

the COA decided that if D had a conditional intent then D could be charged with an attempt to steal some or all of the contents. This is a technical procedural way around the problem

Question 12

What is an example of conditional intent which the COA decided could make D guilty of attempting a crime in Attorney’s General Reference 1979?

Answer 12

conditional intent for example is if D intends to steal if there was anything worth stealing

Question 13

Under the rules of Attorney Generals Reference 1979 conditional intent, in which 2 cases would D be charged with attempting to steal some or all of the contents of the bag?

Answer 13

Easom 1971

Hussyen 1977

Question 14

What does the mens rea for attempted murder need providing?

Answer 14

providing a higher level of intention than for the full offence of murder

Question 15

What level of mens rea does the prosecution need to prove D’s guilt in the full offence of murder?

Answer 15

that the defendant intended to either kill or case GBH

Question 16

For attempted murder, what does the prosecution need to prove for intention?

Answer 16

they must prove intention to kill only (not GBH)

Question 17

What case shows that the prosecution always has to prove the higher level of intention for attempted murder?

Answer 17

Whybrow 1951

Question 18

What happened in the case of Whybrow 1951 which is an example of how the prosecution myst have to prove the higher level of intention for attempted murder?

Answer 18

D wired up wifes bath and caused her an electric shock

Question 19

D wired up wifes bath and caused her an electric shock. Convicted of attempted murder. On appeal the court upheld conviction but criticised the trial judges summing up and stressed that only intention to kill was sufficient for the mens rea of attempted murder
What case is this?

Answer 19

Whybrow 1951

Question 20

What case decided that recklessness was not sufficient for the mens rea?

Answer 20

Millard and Vernon 1987

Question 21

What happened in the case of Millard and Vernon 1987?

Answer 21

Ds repeatedly pushed against a wooden fence on a stand at a football ground. The prosecution alleged that they were trying to break it and they were convicted of attempted criminal damage. COA quashed conviction

Question 22

Ds repeatedly pushed against a wooden fence on a stand at a football ground. The prosecution alleged that they were trying to break it and they were convicted of attempted criminal damage. COA quashed conviction
What case is this?

Answer 22

Millard and Vernon 1987

Question 23

What is not normally sufficient mens rea for an attempt?

Answer 23

recklessness

Question 24

Which case illustrates that recklessness can be sufficient for one part of the offence for an attempt?

Answer 24

Attorney Generals Reference 1994

Question 25

What happened in the case of Attorney Generals Reference 1994 ?

Answer 25

D threw a petrol bomb towards a car containing 4 men, the bomb missed and smashed harmlessly against a wall. D was charged with attempting to commit arson with intent to endanger life. D was acquitted and COA said it was only necessary to prove that D was reckless as to whether life would be endangered.

Question 26

What is attempting the impossible?

Answer 26

this is where a person may intend to commit an offence and may do everything they possibly can to commit it, but in fact the offence is impossible to commit.

Question 27

Example of attempting the impossible?

Answer 27

D goes into V's room and stabs V as he lies in bed. In fact, V died of a heart attack 2 hours before D stabbed him. D merely stabbed a dead body. Murdering V is physically impossible so D cannot be guilty of murder, but can D be guilty of attempted murder?

Question 28

What was the law held by the HOL on attempting the impossible before the 1981?

Answer 28

they held that where a crime was legally or physically impossible to commit, then the defendant could not be guilty of attempting to commit it.

Question 29

What Act stopped the common law idea that where a crime was legally or physically impossible to commit, then the defendant could not be guilty of attempting to commit it?

Answer 29

Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s.1(2)

Question 30

What does the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s.1(2) intend?

Answer 30

it intends to close the loophole of impossibility and make defendants guilty of an attempt even though the full offence was impossible

Question 31

Which case did the HOL have to consider the Criminal Attempts Act 1981?

Answer 31

Anderton v Ryan 1985

Question 32

What happened in the case of Anderton v Ryan 1985

Answer 32

Mrs Ryan bought a video recorder cheaply, she thought it was stolen this she later admitted to the police who were investigating a burglary at her home. Her conviction was quashed as the video recorder was not stolen. Although Mrs Ryan went beyond merely preparatory acts, her acts were innocent.

Question 33

Mrs Ryan bought a video recorder cheaply, she thought it was stolen this she later admitted to the police who were investigating a burglary at her home. Her conviction was quashed as the video recorder was not stolen. Although Mrs Ryan went beyond merely preparatory acts, her acts were innocent. What case is this?

Answer 33

Anderton v Ryan 1985

Question 34

in which case did the HOL overrule Anderton v Ryan 1985?

Answer 34

Shivpuri 1986

Question 35

What happened in the case of Shivpuri 1986?

Answer 35

D agreed to receive a suitcase which he thought contained prohibited drugs, suitcase only contained snuff and harmless vegetable matter. D was convicted of attempting to be knowingly concerned in the dealing of prohibited drugs.

Question 36

D agreed to receive a suitcase which he thought contained prohibited drugs, suitcase only contained snuff and harmless vegetable matter. D was convicted of attempting to be knowingly concerned in the dealing of prohibited drugs. What case is this?

Answer 36

Shivpuri 1986

Question 37

Under what section of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 meant that as D in Shivpuri 1986 intended dealing in drugs, and so intended to commit that offence?

Answer 37

s.1(2)

Question 38

In what case did the HOL accept that their decision had been wrong and used the Practise Statement to overrule that decision?

Answer 38

Anderton v Ryan 1985