Attempts

Question 1

Actus reus- D does an act which is more than merely preparatory

Answer 1

R v Jones: the words are to be given their ordinary meaning
R v Geddes: D entering boys’ toilets; “Had he moved from the realm of intention, preparation and planning into the area of execution and implementation?” (court said no)
R v Gullefer: when D “embarks upon the crime proper”
R v Toothill: D knocking on door intending to rape someone inside sufficient for burglary
R v Dagnall: D dragged V from bus stop and told her he intended to rape her-police car interrupted (sufficient AR)

Question 2

Mens rea- D intends to commit the full offence

Answer 2

R v Pearman: confirmed that ‘intent’ is to be given its common law meaning (both direct and indirect)
R v Whybrow: where offence involves a result, the result must be intended (e.g. an attempt to murder must have an intent to kill, not just GBH
R v Khan: can intend the act but be reckless to the circumstances; attempted rape can be reckless as to whether V consents
R v Pace and Rogers: distinguished Khan, “intent to commit an offence connotes an intent to commit all the elements of the offence”

Question 3

Impossible attempts

Answer 3

R v Shivpuri: can still be convicted of an attempt if it’s factually impossible- D dealt harmless vegetable matter (unknowingly) rather than prohibited drugs)

Question 4

Justifications and criticism of attempts law

Answer 4

Law Commission: justifies it
- “affording the police the opportunity to intervene in good time to prevent harm”
- deterrence
Ashworth: problem of ‘moral luck’
- “Is A, who shoots at X intending to kill him but misses because X unexpectedly moves, any less culpable than B, who shoots at Y intending to kill him and does so?”
- “Moral blame and criminal liability should be based so far as possible on choice and control, on the try8ing and not on what actually happened thereafter”
- “the criminal law should seek to minimise the effect of luck upon the incidence and scale of criminal liability”