Chapter 14 - Attempts Flashcards
What is an inchoate offense?
An inchoate offense is an offense that is incomplete in some way. Attempt is an example of an inchoate offense.
What are the two types of attempts?
The two types of attempts are incomplete attempts, where the defendant has not done all the acts necessary for the offense, and complete attempts, where the defendant has done everything but the desired result did not occur.
What is an example of a complete attempt?
A defendant laces their victim’s drink with poison intending to kill them, but the victim spills the drink and survives. The defendant has completed all the acts necessary for the offense, but the victim did not die.
What is the actus reus of an attempt?
The actus reus of an attempt is an act by the defendant that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offense. Omissions are not included in the definition of attempt.
Can a defendant be charged with attempted murder if they neglect their child, leading to the child’s death?
No. The parents would be liable for murder, as they had a special relationship and statutory duty towards their daughter. However, if the child survives, they cannot be charged with attempted murder. This is because the actus reus of an attempt requires an act, and the parents’ neglect is an omission.
What does Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act (CAA) 1981 state?
If, with intent to commit an offense, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offense, they are guilty of attempting to commit the offense.
Which offenses can be the subject of an attempt charge?
Almost all indictable offenses, those capable of being tried in Crown Court, can be the subject of an attempt charge. Section 1(4) of the CAA 1981 specifies certain offenses which cannot be the subject of an attempt charge, such as attempting to be an accomplice.
Can summary only offenses be the subject of an attempt charge?
Generally, no. Summary only offenses are excluded by the CAA 1981. Although some statutory summary offenses have an attempt provision, such as attempting to drive a motor vehicle while over the prescribed limit for alcohol.
When is an act considered “more than merely preparatory”?
This is a question of fact for the jury, but guidance has been provided by judges. The accused needs to be “on the job,” meaning the merely preparatory acts have ended and the defendant has embarked on the crime proper.
Explain the case of R v Gullefer.
The defendant jumped onto a greyhound racetrack to try to get a refund on his bet. His conviction for attempted theft was quashed because his act was merely preparatory. The court said that the defendant needed to be “on the job.”
What were the key points from R v Gullefer?
The court ruled the defendant’s actions were merely preparatory because he had not embarked on the crime proper. The judges did not state what he needed to do to be liable, but he had several outstanding steps, such as going to the bookmakers to request a refund.
What does the law distinguish between in relation to attempts?
The law distinguishes between acts of preparation, where there will be no liability for attempt, and acts that indicate the defendant is “on the job,” meaning they have embarked on the crime proper. This distinction can occur late in the process.
Explain the case of R v Jones.
This case involved attempted murder. The jury had to determine when Jones crossed the line from preparatory acts to embarking on the crime proper. The Court of Appeal held there was enough evidence for the jury to decide if Jones’s act of getting into the victim’s car was more than merely preparatory.
Why can determining when an act is more than merely preparatory be difficult for law enforcement agencies?
If the agencies intervene too soon, the defendant may be acquitted. However, if they wait too long, the crime may be committed. Essentially, courts must look at what the defendant has done and what else they need to do to commit the offense.
Summarize the three main points to determine for the actus reus of an attempt.
The test is set out in statute: an act, not an omission, is needed that is more than merely preparatory. Case law suggests that significant steps toward the full offense need to be taken, but legally, it is not necessary to establish that the defendant has done everything they intended to do. Whether an act is more than merely preparatory is a question of fact for the jury, if there is evidence the defendant has “embarked on the crime.”
What is the mens rea for an attempt?
The defendant must intend to commit the specific offense attempted. If it’s a result crime, they must intend the prohibited result, even if a lesser mens rea would suffice for the full offense.
What is the mens rea for attempted murder?
The defendant must have the specific intent to kill. An intent to cause grievous bodily harm is not sufficient. This was illustrated in the case of R v Whybrow, where the defendant wired a soap dish to kill his wife.
What types of intent are sufficient for an attempt?
Both direct and indirect intent can be sufficient. The test in R v Woollin applies, meaning foresight of the prohibited result as a virtual certainty is evidence from which the jury may find intention.
Explain the case of R v Millard and Vernon.
The defendant was charged with attempted criminal damage. The court held that an intention to commit the offense must be proven, even though recklessness would be sufficient for the full offense of criminal damage.
What part does recklessness play in attempts?
The defendant must intend all the consequences of the actus reus, even if recklessness would suffice for the full offense. However, recklessness plays a part in offenses that involve ulterior mens rea.
What is ulterior mens rea?
Ulterior mens rea refers to the mental state that goes beyond the actus reus of the offense. For example, in aggravated criminal damage, the actus reus is damaging property, but there is also the ulterior mens rea of intending or being reckless as to whether life would be endangered.
Explain the case of Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1992).
The case involved attempted aggravated criminal damage. The defendant must intend to damage property, but it is sufficient to be reckless as to whether life would be endangered. This is because endangering life is an aspect of the ulterior mens rea and not required for the actus reus.
Provide an example where a defendant could be charged with attempted murder or attempted grievous bodily harm.
Larry and Janice get into an argument, and he grabs a knife and cuts her face. Larry could be charged with attempted murder, but intent may be hard to prove. He could also be charged with attempted grievous bodily harm under s 18 of the OAPA 1861.
Can a defendant be charged with attempted s 20 assault?
It is unlikely they would be charged. If the prosecution pursues a charge for s 20 assault, they still must establish intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, even though the full offense only requires an intent or recklessness as to some harm. Therefore, there is no advantage in charging a defendant with an attempted s 20 assault.
