Law of Attempts Flashcards
(19 cards)
Elements of establishing an attempt
1.) D did an act
2.) With intent to commit an offence to which the CAA applies
3.) Which was more than merely preparatory - Gullefer 1990
What is the definition of an attempt
Where a person attempts to commit a crime but for some reason fails to complete it.
What is the main law of bodies governing this
Criminal Attempts Act 1981
What is the maximum sentence one might get?
Potential punishment for attempts will mirror the maximum for the completed offences:
s.4 Criminal Attempts Act
Actus Reus of Law of Attempts
**An act which was more than merely preparatory **
Gullefer 1990
- Judge decides if jury decide if the act goes beyond mere preparation
Cannot involve an omission
What is meant by more than merely prepatory?
Jones [1990]: Any act can be before the final act can be more than merely preparatory: a fact by fact
- Taken out loaded gun and pointed at victim = sufficient evidence for the consideration of the jury on the charge of attempted murder.
Gullefer - Embarking on the crime proper
- Mason v DPP - not attempted driving over limit. Drunk D tried getting in his car stopped from getting in
Jones there were three more steps that could have been taken NO MATTER
What happened in the case of Gullefer
Gullefer placed a bet on a dog in a greyhound race.
As the race began and his dog was losing, he ran onto the track to disrupt the race.
His aim: to get the race voided so he could reclaim his stake.
He was charged with attempted theft.
COA quashed conviction -
- His act of running onto the track was still only preparatory.
- He had not yet embarked on the actual theft (i.e., trying to retrieve his money).
Therefore, he had not committed an attempt, as his actions had not crossed the threshold into the actual commission of the offence.
What is a controversial case surrounding law of attempts? Where one would think he has attempted but does not count
Geddes (Cases show the line between preparatory acts and attempts are not easy to recognise)
- Depends on situation
D went to boys lavatory block (entered school). Had a rucksack with rope, knife and tape + Hid in the toilet
Appeal - There’s not much room for doubt in the D’s intention. BUT was there enough intention for him to have tried. Conviction QUASHED
Other example of more than merely preparatory
Toothill - attempted burglary. D knocked on door of house intending to rape someone inside -> This case also tells us that interaction/confrontation is really what is required (making a physical contact of sort) CMV Clarkson
**Dagnall **- D dragged V from a bus stop and told her he intended to rape her
**A-G Reg No 1 of 1992 - Attempted Rape **- Touches her pulled down clothes and dragged her to bushes
Moore v DPP - Attempted driving over the limit. Drunk D drove on private road approaching public road, stopped by police officer a few metres down public road
Tosti - D examined padlock of farm building/cutting equipment found nearby - is this attempted burglary? YES
Mens Rea of Attempts
With intent to commit an offence to which the CAA applies
D must intend the specific result required for the full offence.
Recklessness is not enough, except in some limited cases.
🔸** Example: Attempted murder**
Attempted murder, you must intend to kill (Whybrow [1951])
Intent here can be direct or indirect intent, and the normal meanings of these apply: Mohan and Pearman (1984)
What are three views as to intention?
1. Khan test:
Intend act and result.
Recklessness about circumstances may be enough.
2. Pace and Rogers test:
Must intend every part of the offence.
Recklessness is never enough.
3. Missing element test (AG Ref No 3 of 1992):
Ask: what’s the missing piece of the full offence?
Did D intend to supply that missing piece?
Which view of mens rea for law of attempts should be used?
Dyson - As a matter of precedent, all three decisions are at the level of the Court of Appeal so a later constitution of that Court can pick between them, while lower courts are bound by Pace unless they can distinguish it.
**Scenario 1: Attempted Rape **
Facts:
Dan tries to have sex with Mary. He genuinely thinks she might not be consenting, but he goes ahead and tries anyway. He is stopped before penetration happens.
How would each view come to a conclusion
**Khan **
Intent to penetrate = ✔️ (he did intend to have sex (act))
Reckless as to consent = ✔️ (Khan says recklessness is enough for circumstances)
✅ Attempted rape = Guilty
❌ Pace and Rogers test:
Dan must intend that Mary does not consent.
Here, he only suspects it or is reckless = ❌
⛔ Attempted rape = Not guilty
🧩** Missing Element test:**
The only missing element is actual intercourse.
Did Dan intend to supply the missing element (penetration)? Yes.
Did he intend lack of consent? No, only reckless. ⚠️ Depends on which part is considered the missing element.
If penetration is the missing element = ✅ guilty.
If lack of consent is also missing and not intended = ❌ not guilty.
What is conditional intent?
Conditional intent means the defendant intends to commit a crime, but only if certain conditions are met.
No firm intent to kill anyone
What do cases say about law on conditional intent
Husseyn (1978)
D searched a bag in a van looking for valuables
Not guilty: he did not specifically intend to steal scuba equipment
** A-G’s Reference (Nos 1 & 2 of 1979)**
Court clarified: conditional intent (e.g., “to steal anything of value”) is valid.
If indictment worded broadly then one can be found under conditional att
Impossible attempts what does it mean?
The defendant tries to commit a crime, but it’s impossible to complete — either legally or factually — because of how things really are.
Types of Impossible Attempts and explanation
**Factual Impossibility - The crime is impossible because of facts unknown to D.
D thinks the situation allows a crime, but it doesn’t.
Legal Impossibility - The act D intends to commit isn’t actually a crime.
D thinks it is, but legally, it isn’t.
One can be liable under factual
Where does charging someone under factual impossibilit come from?
S1.(2) and (3) of Criminal Attempts Actt
Facts will be taken as defendant believed them to be
Case of Impossible attempts
Shivpuri -
D (Shivpuri) agreed to deal drugs.
He received a package he believed contained heroin or cannabis.
It actually contained harmless vegetable matter (not a controlled drug).
He was charged with attempting to deal in controlled drugs under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
