Preliminary offences Flashcards
Describe Attempts
The law may hold someone liable for trying to commit offence even if they fail.
Cannot hold someone liable ONLY for intending to do full offence.
Must go some way towards committing it.
Manslaughter, Omissions and Summary offences cannot be attempted. ONLY applies to TEW and indictable offences.
Which act defined attempts as “ If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a person does an act which is: More than merely preparatory to commission of the offence they are guilty of attempting to commit the offence “
and also that Sentencing is the same max as for full offence?
Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s1(1)
What is the Actus Reus of attempts?
Common Law Tests (pre 1981) -
Various Common Law tests have been used, eg Rubicon or Last Act test - accused must be immediately and not merely remotely connected to complete def. Emphasis on objective act and not intentions of def. Prep must end and accused must embark on the crime.
Last act test too restrictive eg White 1910
Stages of attempted murder: 1) MR, 2) Prepare, 3) Move eg taking aim (Jones) or finger on trigger 4) Full offence completed
CAA 1981 - Current test, an act must be more than merely prep, going beyond merely preparing.
D not need have reached point of return or performed last act before crime is completed anymore.
Act was more than merely prep:
Jones 1990
Act was less than merely prep:
Geddes 1996
Campbell 1991
What is the case where:
1) D had gun & card. Waited tuside school, got into V’s car, put card around neck & gun at head. V threw gun out and D claimed he had not yet done act, still guilty.
2) Officers told D would rob a bank. Arrested whilst walking down to do it. D not liable, not more than merely prep, didnt grab door handle.
3) D in boys lavatory in school w cider, knife, rope, tape, but not guilty as didnt speak to any boys.
1) Jones 1990
2) Geddes 1996
3) Campbell 1991
What is the Mens Rea of Attempt?
Intention is required -
All inchoate offences are crimes of spec intent. Recklessness not enough.
Even if substantive offence only requires recklessness, must still be proved Millard & Vernon 1971
Intention not needed for every element - eg if joint offence like Crim Dmg & Endangering life, can be merely to destroy or dmg any property, not endanger life
eg A-G ref No 3 1992
What is the case where
1) DD football supporters, pushed against fence to break, did not break. Held, reckless as to whether or not it was broken but reckless not enough.
2) Four men threw petrol bomb from moving car. DD charged with attempt arson and endangering life. D must intend to dmg property but also endanger life… but was overturned by CA and had only one intention needed.
1) Millard & Vernon 1971
2) A-G Ref No 3 1992
For attempted murder…
D must have intended to kill not to just cause GBH eg Whybrow
Is conditional intent sufficient mens rea?
Yes, providing cahrge is generally worded eg Easom 1971
Is legal impossibility a def, is factual impossibility a def?
Yes - Taaffe
No - Shivpuri
What is the case where..
1) D wired up something in bathroom with intention to murder wife, despite claiming it was for her comfort to wire up the radio/thing
2) D picked up handbag, rummaged through it, but left as he didnt find anything good enough to steal. Not enough for conditional intent.
3)
1) Whybrow
2) Easom 1971
3) Taaffe
4) Shivpuri
