Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
PRELIMINARY OFFENCES OF ATTEMPTS - Coggle Diagram
PRELIMINARY OFFENCES OF ATTEMPTS
A person tried to commit an offence but for some reason fails to complete it
DEFINITION (S1 CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS ACT 1981)
"If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a D does an act that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit that offence"
ACTUS REUS OF ATTEMPT
The old law: Before the definition in the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, the 2 main tests came from the courts:
LAST ACT TEST- Had the D done the last act they could do before committing the crime?
PROXIMITY TEST- Were the D's 'so immediately connected' to the acts reus of the offence as to justify liability for attempts
More than merely preparatory: there have been many cases on the meaning of this but there is no single clear principle that come from them
Attorney General Reference- D dragged a girl into a shed with intent of raping her. He lowered his trousers and assaulted her, his conviction for attempted rape was upheld. The D need not have performed the last act before the crime proper, nor he need to reach the point of no return
R v Gullefer- D jumped onto a greyhound racetrack to try and stop the race so he could get his money back, his actions were merely preparatory to committing the offence and he had not embarked on the crime proper
R v Geddes- D was found in a school boys toilets with a knife, rope and masking tape. The COA asked:
Had teh accused moved from planning to execution?
Had the accused done an act showing that he was actually trying to commit the full offence?
GOING BEYOND MERELY PREPARATORY
R v Boyle and Boyle- D's were found standing next to a door that had a broken lock and hinge. Their conviction for attempted burglary was upheld, trying to gain entry was an attempt
R v Jones- D's partner said she wanted to end their relationship as she was seeing the V. D brought a gun and got into the V's car and pointed the gun at them, convicted for attempted murder was upheld
MENS REA OF ATTEMPT
The D must have the same intention as would be required for the full offence. If prosecution can't prove that intention, then the D isn't guilty of attempt
R v Easom- D picked up a bag in the cinema, and put it back without taking anything. There was no evidence that the D had intended to permanently deprive and so not guilty
R v Husseyn- D and another man were seen around the back of a van, when approached by the police they ran off. The D was convicted of attempting to steal equipment, the COA quashed the conviction.
MENS REA OF ATTEMPTED MURDER
The prosecution must prove intention to kill (to cause GBH isn't enough for attempted murder, it must be to kill)
This is shown in R v Whybrow- The D wired up his wife's bath and caused her to have an electric shock
Is recklessness enough to satisfy the mens rea of attempt?
R v Millard and Vernon- D's pushed up against a fence on a stand at a football ground, the prosecution said they were trying to break it and were convicted of criminal damage
The COA quashed the conviction as recklessness isn't enough for the mens rea of criminal damage
Attorney General's Reference- D threw petrol bombs at a car with 4 men inside, the bomb missed and hit a wall. He was acquitted initially as the judge said there must be proof he intended to damage the property and endanger life
The COA said he was wrong as intent must be proved for damage to property so he was convicted of attempting to arson with intent to danger life
Attempting the impossible
S1(2) CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS ACT 1981- 'A person may be guilty of attempting to commit offence... even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible'
The decision ins Anderton v Ryan seemed to go against this: D bought a video recorder but later confessed to the police that she believed it to have been stolen property. D was charged with attempting to handle stolen goods
PROBLEMS
Its not always clear as to what is merely preparatory and what constitutes to an attempt
The CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS ACT 1981 states that the D must do an act, that attempt can't be committed by an omission
REFORMS
Law Commission 'Conspiracy and Attempts' (Part 1)
CRIMINAL ATTEMPT- Which would be limited to situations where the D committed the 'last act'
CRIMINAL ENGAGEMENT- Which would be where D engaged in conduct 'preparatory' to committing the offence
Law Commission 'Conspiracy and Attempts' (Part 2)
Omission should be sufficient for attempts
Criminal Attempts Act 1981 be amended to include conditional intent