WS 8 - Attempts Flashcards
Attempts legislation
s.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981)
Actus reus of attempt
1) Must be an act (not omission)
2) That is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence
Mens Rea of attempt
1) Intent to commit the offence
S.1(2) CAA 1981
Impossibility does not prevent AR from being established (i.e. pick-pocketing an empty pocket or trying to break a safe with a spoon)
Omissions and attempts?
AN OMISSION IS NOT AN ACT, and so an omission cannot amount to the actus reus of an attempt (e.g. if a young girl is starved by her parents, if she survives, they would not be liable for attempted murder)
Where should one first look for the test of what is merely preparatory?
Statute
Test in R v Jones for more than merely preparatory
R v Jones: Significant steps need to be taken towards the full offence, but, as a matter of law, it is not necessary for D to have done all he intends to do. (Pointing a gun at someone is more than merely preparatory)
Is the consideration of whether act is more than merely preparatory left to the jury?
• Whether an act is more than merely preparatory will be a question of fact in each case, provided the judge feels there is some evidence that the D has ‘embarked upon the crime’ so that the matter can be left to the jury
Gullefer
He must at least have embarked upon the crime proper. Question of fact to be decided by the jury
R v Shivpuri
(Impossibility) D thought he was smuggling drug but was talcum powder. Had AR as did act which was more than merely preparatory
R v Whybrow (1951)
Defendant must intend all consequences, which form part of the actus reus of the full offence (even if recklessness would have sufficed for the full offence)!!!!
Facts of Whybrow
D wired up soap dish to the electricity supply in order to electrocute and kill his wife. Judge directed jury than an intention to kill or cause GBH would suffice on a charge of attempted murder. ON APPEAL, CoA said that this was a misdirection and that only an intention to kill would suffice for attempted murder.
Can you attempt s.20 OAPA?
NB – s.20 OAPA – falls away for the purposes of attempt. NO SUCH THING AS ATTEMPTED S.20
R v Millard and Vernon [1987]
D charged with attempted criminal damage. Judge directed jury that they could convict if the D was reckless as to whether the property would be damaged. Again the CoA confirmed that only intention to commit offence was adequate, thus only intention to cause criminal damage would suffice for a charge of attempted criminal damage.
AG’s Reference No.3 1992
For aggravated criminal damage, D must intend damage, but can be reckless as to whether life endangered. This is ulterior mens rea No need for life to be endangered for AR.
R v Khan
CofA decided that the D must intend sexual intercourse either knowing of the lack of consent, or being reckless as to the other’s consent. Same for full offence of rape at the time – submitted by manual that would be the same under SOA 2003
• The D commits the offence because of the circumstances in which he manifests that intent, i.e. when the ‘victim’ is not consenting and he knows or is reckless about the absence of consent. Same for attempted rape
• From Manual Summary
Conditional intent and attempts
Conditional Intent: Sufficient (i.e. if D puts hand in pocket to take anything if its worth stealing
s.1(3) CAA 1981
Impossibility (of ends and means) doesn’t prevent MR of attempt being established, if on facts as D believed them to be, he would have had such intent.
What cannot be an attempt?
Generally, all indictable offences can be the subject of an attempt charge. However, s.1(4) CAA 1981 – lists certain offences which cannot be attempted. Most important is that a D cannot be charged with attempting to be an accomplice (s.1(4)(b) CAA 1981)
