LO5 Understand the requirements for liability for inchoate offences - AR and MR requirements for attempt
s1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981
effect of impossibility
analysis of the rules governing liability for attempt: the theoretical basis of liability
"more than merely preparatory"
R v Gullefer (1990)
R v Jones (1990)
R v Geddes (1996)
A-G's ref (no 1 of 1992)
R v Pearman (1984)
R v Khan (1990)
A-G's ref (no 3 of 1992) (1994)
R v Shivpuri (1986)
"a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence"
Applies to both indictable and either way offences
placed bet on greyhound race and tried to distract the dogs to claim stake. The Act is a guide as to when the "series of acts" starts and that is when D "embarks on a crime proper".
followed test laid out in Gullefer.
Found in boys toilet of school rucksack and contents. C of A held that although he undoubtedly had the necessary intention, the evidence showed no more than that he made preparations got himself ready and in position to commit the offence of false imprisonment. he had not moved from the role of preparation to execution or implementation.
Threw a petrol bomb from a moving car hit a stationery car and wall. C of A held that recklessness as to the circumstances
a person can attempt the impossible and this is the case irrespective of whether the crime is physically impossible or legally impossible.
Attempt rape offence may be have been complete before the attempt at physical penetration.
click to edit
F: guy who swerved and tried to hit policemen
I: for an attempt, direct or oblique intent is enough for the substantive offence.
-gave the example of the plane bomber wanting insurance, not deaths
click to edit
for an attempt, D had to have intent as to his conduct and recklessness (or the same MR as for the substantive offence) as to the circumstances
- it is impossible to commit rape where V is consenting, S&H say if D has no positive belief about V's consent, it should not be enough for attempt
- Jo Miles says recklessness shouldn't be enough
For section 170(1) of the 1979 Act to apply, it is immaterial that S did not know the exact nature of the substance in his possession, but nevertheless believed he was dealing with controlled drugs the importation of which was prohibited.