Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Inchoate offences - Law of criminal attempts: (Mens Rea: The mens rea of…

- - - - Certain rationales have been suggested to make more sense of the case law in this area, such as that of proximity. This is the argument that the more than merely preparatory act is found when the defendant is in close proximity of committing the offence. However, this does not hold true, as Geddes had no further proximity than the defendants in Tosti, therefore this is not a satisfactory rationale.
      - The 'last act approach': was where the defendants who had got 'very far' in their conduct towards the commission of the offence but had not quite reached the last act would be acquitted.
      - Criticism of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981: Attempts are charged contrary to s.1(1), where the actus reus of an attempt is satisfied when the defendant takes steps which are more than merely preparatory towards the commission of an offence. This is ultimately a question of fact to be decided by the jury under s.4(3). The Act provides no further guidance as to what constitutes mere preparation and when a defendant has taken steps that go beyond merely preparing to commit an offence. - Thus whether the actus reus of an attempt is satisfied must be determined on a case-by-case basis
      - In balancing between the 'last act approach' and the 'proximity' approach, Lord Lane in Gullefer took the view that the attempt begins when the defendant 'embarks on the crime proper' or 'actual commission of the offence'. Although s.1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 may not be as restrictive as the proximity test under the old common law, Campbell post-1981 has taken a narrow approach to the interpretation of the section and its confirmed that requiring proximity is the same as requiring more than mere preparation:' a proximate act was one that went beyond mere preparation and an act that went beyond mere preparation was proximate
      - Yet, s.1(1) would be criticised by Smith for leaving the courts to construe "more than merely preparatory" virtually unaided and Dennis argues that the test is too imprecise and that it was undesirable to give no further guidance to either the judge or jury on its application.