Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
ATTEMPT - Coggle Diagram
ATTEMPT
- can you be convicted for attempting to steal something from an empty pocket or of attempting to murder someone who was already dead?
- S1(2)Criminal Attempts Act 1981 stated that an accused could be convicted for attempting a crime that
-HoL seemed to make a decision that contradicted the act. A woman being questioned by the police admitted that she had bought a stolen VCR. it was later found that the VCR may not have been stolen. HoL ruled that if this was the case it was impossible to commit the full crime and therefore there could be no conviction for attempted handling
- HL overruled anderton. shivpuri was convicted of attempting to deal in and import controlled drugs. in practice it was impossible to commit this crime because, unknown to him, his supplier had substituted dried vegetable matter. if Anderton was followed this impossibility should have prevented conviction for attempt. however Lord Bridge reluctantly admitted that he'd been wrong in Anderton. impossibility did not prevent conviction for attempt.
- impossibility does not prevent conviction for attempt if the completed action would not have been an offence.
- see Taaffe 1984 accused smuggled foreign currency into the country thinking that it was a crime to do so. it was no longer and offence so he couldn't be convicted of the attempted offence.
- NO CLEAR DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN PREPARATION AND ATTEMPT
- DICOURAGES EARLY INTERVENTION BY THE POLICE
-
- WHY DO WE NEED LAW ON ATTEMPT
- without the offence of attempt, police would have to wait until the full crime was committed before they
-
- "an act that is more that merely preparatory to the commission of an offence" S.1(1)Criminal Attempts Act 1981
- more than merely preparatory
- not attempt if accused was merely getting ready to commit crime
- he has to cross line between mere preparation and actually try to commit the full offence
- may be very difficult for juries to decide whether or not that line has been crossed
- juries should be told that attempt begins when accused "Embarks upon the crime proper"
- accused jumped on greyhound track to make void a bet on a dog that was losing. he was arrested before he'd actually gone to get his money back. CoA said that he hadn't "embarked upon the crime proper" & therefore there could be no conviction for attempted deception
- CoA decided being outside a post office with fake gun and threatening note was mere preparation and not attempted robbery. he claimed that he has changed his mind and was walking away. it seems he would have actually had to go inside the post office and present the note for it to be considered attempt
- he was seen in school toilet with bag containing large kitchen knife, a rope & masking tape. he hadn't yet approached any child. again this was mere preparation and not attempted false imprisonment or assault.
- Jones 1990 (example of when an accused has gone far enough for an attempt)
- accused got into a car and actually pointed the gun before V grabbed it and threw it out the window
- the charge bought when for some reason the full offence hasn't been committed, e.g., the bullet misses or robber runs off after someone pushes the alarm button
- attempt = not an independent offence - must always be linked to full offence such as attempted murder/theft
- accused must intend to complete full offence Criminal Attempts Act 1981
- only intention will suffice
- this is so even if the full crime can be committed recklessly
- accused were banging on fencing at football match & were charged with attempted criminal damage. they were aware of the risk of causing damage (reckless), & if they had damaged it, could have been convicted of criminal damage. however, they couldn't be convicted of attempting to do so if they did not have the intention to do criminal damage
- similarly, if accused threw brick over wall & bruised someone he would at least be reckless. this recklessness would be enough to convict for ABH. however if brick missed it'd be much harder to convict him for attempted ABH. intention (main aim or virtually certain) to apply force would need to be proved.
- in offences where recklessness as to circumstances is part of the mens rea for the completed offence, recklessness is enough to convict for attempt
- you have the mens rea of attempted aggravated criminal damage if you intended to damage (consequence) but were only reckless about endangering life (surrounding circumstances). AG Ref.No.03 1992
- ATTEMPTED MURDER REQUIRES INTENTION TO KILL
- i.e., intention to do GBH is sufficient for murder but not enough for attempted murder
- accused wired the soap dish to the electricity supply. he was charged with attempted murder of his wife. on appeal it was said if his intention as only to injure or burn, he couldn't be convicted for attempted murder. to convict for attempted murder it must be shown that her death was his main aim or that he foresaw her death as virtually certain.
- CONDITIONAL INTENT IS ENOUGH MENS REA FOR ATTEMPT
- AG.Ref.No.1 &2 1979
- an accused who picks a lock on a van, intending only to steal something if he finds something he wants, can still be convicted if attempted theft even if he doesn't take anything.
-
- LOSS OF CONTROL/PROVOCATION AND DR ARE NOT DEFENCES TO ATTEMPTED MURDER
- this is because unlike murder (mandatory life) the sentence for attempted murder is discretionary - judge can take any provocation or abnormality of mind into account when he decides the sentence.
- YOU CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTING THE FOLLOWING OFFENCES
- Aiding and abetting
- conspiracy
- most summary offences
- manslaughter