Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Law > Attempts Liability > Flashcards

Attempts Liability Flashcards

1
Q

where does the law for attempts come from

A

Criminal Attempts Act 1981

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

how is D criminalised via attempts liability (3, use case)

A

-must attach to a future princple offence (FPO), no liability for attempts alone
-D criminalised for more than merely preparatory acts towards comission od FPO
-Webley v Buxton; generally, D only charged for attempt where there is a failure to successfully commit offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in Webley. Buxton

A

-generally, D only charged for attempt where there is a failure to successfully commit an offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what happens if D commits a different principal, during an attempt

A

-may be charged with completed principle offence and attemoted principle offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

does the reason of failure to complete a principal offence matter

A

no , it is irrelevant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

where is AR for attempts found

A

s.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981
-D must do act which is more than merely preparatory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

where are exceptions for attempts found

A

s.1(4) Criminal Attempts Act 1981
(a) attempting conspiracy
(b)attempting complicity
(c)summary only offences + attempting to help offender after comission of crime + omissions (unless there is a legal duty to act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what is the meaning of more than merely preparatory

A

-undefined in statute
-‘natural meaning’ (Jones(1990))

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what is the legal principle in Jones 1990

A

-more than merely prepatory takes on its ‘natural meaning’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

how is ‘more than merely preparatory’ applied after the Criminal Attempts Act (4 cases)

A

-too narrowly
-eg R v Robinson (fake burglary), R v Campbell (post office), R v Geddes (boys toilet), R v K (2009)(laptop)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Gallefer

A

-D tried to distact race dogs to declare no race and reclaim financial stake
-conv quashed as not sufficient proximity to crime (still had to ask for money back)
-had to ‘embark on the crime proper’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in

A

-D arrested outside post office BEFORE robbery, police tipped off
-conv quashed, not MTMP

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Geddes

A

-D found in boys toilet with knife
-conv quashed bc no contact with child
-not MTMP

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v K (2009)

A

-D asked 6yo if he wanted to come watch porn on office laptop
-conv quashed as child not led to laptop
-not MTMP

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

give 3 cases where ‘more than merely preparatory’ was not applied narrowly

A

-R v Jones (1990); D pointed gun at V with catch on –> gun thrown out window + MTMP
-R v Dagnall; physical confrontation sufficient for attempted rape
-R v Tosti; D charged for attempted burglary bc found inspecting barn lock and metal cutting equipment in car

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Jones (1990)

A

-D had affair with woman, she refused to continue
-D pointed gun at V with catch on but V threw it out window
-MTMP

17
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Dagnall

A

-police intervened on D attempting to rape V but no undressing or penetration
-physical confrontation sufficient for attempted rape

18
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Tosti

A

-R v Tosti; D charged for attempted burglary bc found inspecting barn lock and metal cutting equipment in car

19
Q

what are the two types of impossible attempts

A

-legal impossibility
-factual impossibility

20
Q

what is legal impossibility + give case example

A

-D attempts something that isnt a crime and has no liability for attempts
-Taafe; D thought he was importing currency not drugs

21
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in Taafe

A

-legal impossibility
-D thought he was importing currency not frugs

22
Q

what is factual impossibility (s.1(2)CAA

A

-future principle offence exists in law but circumstances surrounding attempt mean it cannot come about

23
Q

where is the law for factual possibility found + give case

A

-s.1(2); liable for factual impossibility if D goes beyond MTMP on the facts as D subjectively believed them to be towards committing a valid future principle offence
-R v Shivpuri; immaterial D didnt know exact nature, still prohibited importation

24
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Shivpuri

A

-D thought that he was a drugs courier for legal snuff not heroin
-immaterial D didnt know exact nature of substance he still dealt with prohibited importation

25
Q

where is the MR for attempts liability found

A

s.1(1); D acts with intent to commit an offence
-this requires ulterior intent to commit future principal offence (acting with intent of bringing about specififc consequence(AR of crime))

26
Q

what does attempts liability require of MR

A

-D must act with full intention to complete future principal offence
-eg attempt to cause ABH requires intent to cause ABH

27
Q

what is the legal principle in Walker v Hayes

A

-ulterior intent can be either direct or indirect

28
Q

is conditional intent sufficient for attempts? 2 cases

A

-conditional intent is still intent to steal (A-G’s Ref (No 1 and 2 of 1979) unless its to steal a specific item (Husseyn 1977(

29
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle of A-G’s Ref (No1 and 2 of 1979)

A

-CA held attempted burglary did not require intent to burgle specific things
-conditional intent to steal is still intent to steal

30
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Husseyn

A

-D not convicted as D didnt intend to steal anything specific
-box was labelled ‘valuable’

31
Q

what are the cases for possible and impossible attempts

A

-Khan - possible
-Pace and Rogers - impossible

32
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in Khan(1990)

A

-D said he couldnt care less about girls consent
-MR of rape requires intending conduct element(penetration) but D was reckless regarding lack of consent
-requiring intent for a circ element for attempted crime would make an attempt harder to satisfy than the principle pffence
-Held that D can be liable for an attempt if intending conduct and result element of AR of future principle offence and MR for the circ element mirrors that stipulated by the future principle offence

33
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in Pace and Rogers

A

-undercover police sold ‘stolen’ scrap metal to Ds then, impossible as wasnt stolen was police property
-charge’s circ element for MR= D must know/ suspect property is criminal property
-Khan not followed; held to attempt this crime D must intend every element of AR for future principal offence

34
Q

is there a defence of withdrawal for attempts liability

A

-no

35
Q
A

Criminal Law (17 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions