Attempts Flashcards
R v Gullefer
AR - MP
The D had to go and ask for his money back first, no attempted theft.
R v Campbell
AR - MP
D did not end up entering the post office to threaten staff and attempt robbery.
R v Geddes
AR - MP
D had not tried to actually commit the crime itself
R v Nash
AR - MP
Although the first 2 letters D sent requested an act of gross indecency, the 3rd one did not, so it couldn’t be an attempt as such
MS, Application by the Prosecution for Leave of Appeal
AR - MP; Mens rea
The CoA stated that ‘geographical proximity’ was not a sole deciding factor and each case must be looked at based on its own facts
CoA stated that D could have still ‘embarked upon’ the crime from some considerable distance
R v Boyle and Boyle
AR - MTMP
All they had to do was enter the building to complete committing the full crime
R v Jones
AR - MTMP
All he had to do was pull the trigger to commit the full crime
A-G Ref (No1 of 1992)
AR - MTMP
All he had to do was penetrate V to commit the full crime
R v Whybrow
Mens rea
The mens rea is intent to kill for attempted murder
R v Millard
Mens rea
No attempt as there was no intent, as recklessness will not suffice
A-G Ref (No3 of 1992)
Mens rea
Need intent to damage property but could be reckless as to endanger life
R v Khan
Mens rea
A person may be guilty of an attempt even if the full offence requires a certain state of mind (eg consent in rape), provided they had rage necessary intent to commit the act and were reckless to the circumstances
R v Pace and Rogers
Mens rea
D must have intent to commit all the elements of the offence, not just some of them. Suspicion is not sufficient.
Anderson v Ryan
Attempting the impossible
D could not be convicted for something she believed but turned out to be wrong (overruled by Shivpuri)
R v Shivpuri
Attempting the impossible
Overruled Anderson v Ryan, D was convicted of attempting the impossible
R v Jones
Attempting the impossible
Even though the V was not a real 12yo girl, D was still convicted of attempting the impossible
Attempts plan
Where someone attempts to commit a crime but at some point fails.
Defined under s1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 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 the commission of the offence, they are guilty of attempting to commit that offence’
It is a question of fact as to whether the D has moved from the merely preparatory stage and gone sufficiently far enough towards committing the full offence, for the act to be considered an attempt.
It is specifically asked:
- Had the D actually tried to commit the offence? (More than merely preparatory)
- Or, had they simply got ready, got into position or equipped themselves to commit the offence? (Merely preparatory)
AR:
- An attempt must be a positive act, not an omission, that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence - R v Boyle and Boyle, R v Jones, A-G Ref (No1 of 1992)
- Therefore an offence that is merely preparatory is not an attempt - R v Gullefer, R v Campbell, R v Geddes, R v Nash, MS Application by the Prosecution for Leave of Appeal
Apply….
MR:
- The prosecution must prove D’s intent to commit that particular full offence - R v Whybrow, A-G Ref (No3 of 1992)
- Recklessness will not suffice - R v Millard
-In certain crimes, an intent may suffice for the full crime, but also suffice for an attempt - R v Khan
Apply….
Attempting the impossible:
The 1981 Act has drawn a distinction between an offence which is factually impossible and legally impossible
S1(2) - factual impossibility
- if on the fact of the case, the commission of the crime is impossible, but D believed it to be possible, they can still be convicted of attempted crime - Anderson v Ryan, R v Shivpuri, R v Jones
S1(3) - legal impossibility
- if D believes they are committing an offence, but they are actually not committing an offence, they cannot be convicted of attempting the offence they think they’re committing - MS Application…
Apply….
Conclusion - if the act is more than merely preparatory, D could be convicted to attempted crime where they satisfy intent under attempting the impossible.
