Preliminary Offence of Attempt Flashcards
Under what statute is attempt defined?
S.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981
What is the definition of attempt?
“The intent to commit an offence where a person acts more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence”
What type of offence can not have an offence of attempt?
Summary offences
What was held in R v White?
The defendant was convicted of attempted murder even though the victim died of a heart attack before they could drink the poison
What is the actus reus of attempt?
It is more than merely preparatory for the main crime
What was held in the Attorney General’s reference 1 of 1992?
The defendant need not have performed the act before the crime proper, nor need they have reached the ‘point of no return’
What was held in R v Gullefer?
“Merely preparatory” means that the defendant must ‘embarked on the crime proper’
What is the test in Geddes?
- Had the accused moved from planning to execution/implementation?
- Have they actually tried to commit the offence or have they just equipped themselves to do so?
What was held in R v Boyle and Boyle?
The COA held that once they entered the property, they would be committing burglary, so trying to gain entry was an attempt
What was held in R v Jones?
The COA held that buying the gun, shortening it, loading it and disguising himself were all preparatory acts. But once D got into V’s car and pointed the gun, there was sufficient evidence to allow consideration of an offence of attempt
What is the mens rea of attempt?
The defendant should have the same level of intention required for the full offence
What was held in R v Easom?
No evidence that D intended to steal the items in the bag, so couldn’t be convicted of attempted theft
Critically evaluate R v Easom.
- Surely D intended to steal it though, they put the bag down as there was nothing worth stealing
What was held in Attorney General’s reference 1 and 2 of 1979?
If the defendant had conditional intent, D could be charged with attempt to steal its contents
What would have happened in Easom and Huseyn, providing that Att. General’s reference 1 and 2 of 1979 was in force?
They would both have been charged