Attempted offences:

• • S1(1) of the Criminal Act, 1981 ​
  • ​“If with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, 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.” ​
  • ​Actus Reus – a person does an act which is more than just preparing to commit the offence. ​
  • ​Mens Rea – with intent to commit that offence. ​
• Indictable offence

  Offence that must be tried in the Crown Court, generally more severe offences that carry serious prison sentences, usually result in a custodial sentence
• Triable either way offence

  Offence that can be heard in either the Magistrates Court or the Crown Court
• Triable either way offence procedure

  1. Magistrates Court asks defendant to indicate plea

  2. If plea is guilty, Magistrates hear from prosecution and decide if they have adequate sentencing powers or will commit to Crown Court for sentence

  3. If plea is not guilty, Magistrates hear from prosecution and decide if matter is suitable for summary trial, if not they will commit to Crown Court for trial
• The act or crime must be indictable or triable either way and charged as indictable
• THERE HAS TO BE AN ACT
• MENS REA – THE DEFENDANT MUST HAVE THE SAME INTENTION AS THEY WOULD HAVE FOR THE FULL OFFENCE. ​
• CONDITIONAL INTENT – THE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO STEAL IF THERE WAS ANYTHING WORTH STEALING – IS ENOUGH​.

  • Attorney-General’s Reference (Nos 1 and 2 of 1979) (1979) – In both cases nothing was actually stolen. ​
  • ​In case 1 – D went into the house to steal £2000, but was found by the owner – acquitted. ​
  • ​In case 2 – D went into the house to see if there was anything worth stealing – acquitted. ​
• • Recklessness on its own is not enough – R v Millard and Vernon (1987) ​
  • Acquitted for criminal damage of football ground after repeatedly pushing against the fence. ​
  • ​EXCEPTION: Where there is intention to one part of the offence ​
  • ​Attorney-General’s Ref (No.3 of 1992) (1994) – threw petrol bomb at a car containing 4 men.  The D was charged with attempted arson with intent to endanger life.  To be convicted it had to be proved that the D intended to damage property, but it was only necessary to prove that he was reckless as to whether life was endangered.  ​
• In some situations, what the offence the defendant attempts to commit cannot possibly be an offence
• Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s 1(2)


  A person may be guilty of attempting to commit an offence ...even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible
• Legal Impossibility


  R v Taaffe - 1984 - believed that he was importing currency into the country (which he believed was prohibited but was not) which was in fact cannabis. His appeal was allowed by the court as his offence was not one known by UK law
• • Factual Impossibility – R v Shivpuri (1986) The D was charged with attempting to deal drugs. However, the substance in the briefcase was actually cabbage.  ​
  • ​The D was convicted under S1(2) of the Criminal Attempts Act – the facts as he believed them to be were that the suitcase contained prohibited drugs so he had the intention for the crime.  ​
• • The act must be More than merely preparatory.​
  • PREVIOUS CASES:THERE IS NO GENERAL PRINCIPLE.THE BEST WAY TO UNDERSTAND THIS AREA IS TOLOOK AT THE CASES FOR COMMON THEMES​
• Cases where there has been an attempt:

  R v Boyle & Boyle (1987)

  R v Jones (1990)

  R v Tosti (1997)

  R v Dagnall (2003)