Preliminary offences

• Attempts are referred to as what? Meaning?

  Inchoate offences meaning an offence that is incomplete
• What Act?


  The Criminal Attempts Act 1981
• What did The Criminal Attempts Act 1981 aim to do?

  Amend the law on attempts to commit offences and conspire to commit offences
• 1. Attempting to commit an offence

  With INTENT to commit an offence, a person does an act which is MORE THAN MERELY PREPARATORY to the commission of the offence, he's guilty
• 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.
• What might make the offence impossible?

  Already dead, not there, intended to steal but it’s not there anymore etc
• Attempts can only be charged for what?

  Indictable offences or triable either way offences that are to be tried on indictment, not summary offences eg assault and battery can’t be charged for an attempt as they are not indictable (that serious)
• What’s the actus reus for an attempt and how can it be explained?

  ‘More than merely preparatory’. A question for the jury to decide, considering if D has actually tried to commit the offence or whether they had simply equipped themselves to do so.
• What questions does the actus reus create?

  At what point does D have to be at to be guilty of an attempt eg walking into the bank he’s about to rob?
• What phrase did the judgement of Gullefer create?

  When the more than merely preparatory act comes to an end and D has embarked on the crime proper, then the offence is committed
• What is the phrase from Geddes?

  Crossed the rubicon (transition from preparatory act to embarking in the crime is the point of being guilty for an attempt)
• Campbell


  Police arrested D with knowledge of his potential robbery OUTSIDE the post office. At the point of teh arrest it would be quite IMPOSSIBLE for D to attempt his robbery unless he entered. A number of acts remained undone and the acts he had already performed were ‘merely preparatory’. If D is not in a position where he can carry out the offence then he cannot be convicted of an attempt
• Cases where the act was more than merely preparatory?

  • AG Ref where D’s attempt to commit rape was successful because he’d pulled down his trousers
  • Boyle v Boyle, Jones
• Mens rea?


  S1(1) refers to D acting ‘with intent to commit an offence’. Mohan defined ‘intent’ but conditional intent (the fact D would have done the act had it been possible for him to do so) also applies seen in AG’s Ref No1&2 of 1979
• Mens rea for attempted murder?

  It is a higher level of intention than murder. The mens rea for murder is intention to kill or cause serious harm (direct or indirect intention) but for attempted murder D must be proven to have had an intention to kill, an intention to cause serious harm is not enough (Whybrow)
• Recklessness for mens rea?

  Established recklessness is not sufficient mens rea for an attempt (Millard and Vernon). However recklessness may be relevant as part of an ulterior offence eg needed intent to commit arson but recklessness to endanger life was sufficient (AG’s Ref no3 of 92)
• What did S1(2) and 1(3) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 introduce as a new offence?

  Attempting the impossible
• With the offence of attempting the impossible what must there be a clear distinction between?

  Something that is factually and legally impossible. If the commission of the crime was factually impossible D can still be convicted of an attempt (Anderton v Ryan which went against this but in Shivpuri this was overruled). If the offence D is attempting to commit isn’t an offence then D cannot be guilty (Taaffe was legally impossible)