Attempts Flashcards
Attempts
Where a person tries to commit an offence, has the mes rea to do so, but for some reason fails to.
s1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981:
“If with intent to commit an offence… a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence”
Act specifically requires an act not an omission.
Actus Reus
The act must be more than merely preparatory.
Gullefer- D jumped onto greyhound race track to have the race declared void and to enable him to reclaim money he had bet. Conviction for attempted theft quashed as his act was merely preparatory (he had several other acts to do before the theft of the money he bet). Held that ‘more than merely preparatory’ means that D must be ‘embarked on the crime proper’.
AG’s Ref No.1- Decided that D need not have performed the last act before the crime proper, nor need they have reached the ‘point of no return’.
Geddes- D found in boys’ toilets with knife, rope and masking tape. His conviction of attempted false imprisonment quashed as he had not contacted any of the pupils. CoA established two questions:
1) Had the accused moved from planning or preparation to execution or implementation?
2) Had the accused done an act showing that he was actually trying to commit the full offence, or had he got only as far as getting ready, or putting himself in a position, or equipping himself, to do so?
Campbell- imitation gun, loitering outside post office, conviction quashed as merely preparatory, next step woukd be to enter.
Boyle & Boyle- Ds standing by door with brocken lock & hinge. Conviction for attempted burglary upheld as trying to gain entry was an attempt.
Tosti & White- Ds intended to burgle premises, took metal cutting equipment & examined padlock on door but didn’t damage it. Found guilty as examining lock and bringing equipment meant they had embarked on the crime proper.
Jones- D’s partner told him she was seeing another man (V). D bought gun, got into car, pointed at V who managed to throw it out window. D’s conviction of attempted murder upheld.
Mens Rea of attempt
D must act with direct intention to commit the offence
Easom- no evidence that D inteded to permanently deprive so wasn’t guilty of attempted theft, conditional intent wasn’t sufficient
Husseyn- D loitering near van, convicted of attempting to steal sub-aqua equipmen, CoA quashed conviction as his true intention was to steal anything.
AG’s Ref No.1 & 2 1979- Now, if D had conditional intent he could be charged with an attempt to steal.
Mens Rea of attempted murder
D must have intention to kill, not just to cause GBH
Whybrow- D wired up wife’s bath, causing her to have an electric shock. As he only intended to cause GBH, he couldn’t be guilty of attempted murder.
Walker & Hayes- Ds threw V from balcony, V wasn’t killed. Attempted murder CAN be committed with oblique intention to kill.
Recklessness
Not normally sufficient MR for an attempt.
Millard & Vernon- Ds repeatedly pushed against a fence on a stand at a football ground. Prosecution claimed they were trying to break it, however their conviction of attempted criminal damage was quashed on appeal.
Exception: necessary to prove intended damage to property, but only had to prove recklessness as to endangerment of life.
AG’s Ref No. 3 1994- D threw petrol bomb at car with 4 men in. Bomb missed the car. D convitced of attempting to commit arson with intent to danger life. Had to be proved that D intended to damage property, but it was only necessary to prove that he was reckless as to whether life would be endangered.
Attempting the impossible
s1(2) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 “A person may be guilty of attempting to commit an offence…even though the facts are such that the comission of the offence is impossible”
Despite this, HoL held D wasn’t guilty of attempting the impossible in Anderton v Ryan- D bought a video recorder very cheaply that she thought was stolen. Her conviction quashed as it wasn’t stolen, just defective. HoL ignored 1981 Act as D couldn’t be convicted for something she believed but later turned out to be false.
Shivpuri- D convicted of attempting to be ‘knowingly concerned in dealing drugs’. He thought he was carrying a suitcase of cannabis which was in fact dried cabbage leaves. HoL used practice statement to overrule Anderton.
Jones- D was convicted for attempting the impossible (soliciting who he thought was a 12 year old girl, was in fact an undercover police woman)
