Attempts

• Inchoate offences - incomplete offence
• “if, with intent to commit an offence, a person does something that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence”
• S1(1) of the criminal attempts act 1981
• Actus reus:

  • must be a positive act, not an omission
  • must be an act that is MTMP
• Set list of offences:

  • all indictable offences
  • all TEW offences
  • not applicable to summary offences
• Whether an act is merely prep is for jury to decide as a question of fact. Judge must not usurp the jury’s function
• Proximity (mere prep): Gullefer case: “there is no rule of thumb for distinguishing between mere prep and an attempt
• Geddes case: clear intent but mere prep
• Crossing the rubicon - MTMP
• embarking on the crime proper, no point of return
• Tosti: attempted burglary, noticed being watched and ran. Court held had done more than mere prep for the crime
• R v Campbell: MP - did not enter the post office and threaten staff
• R v Nash: letters not amount to unequivocal invitation and we’re not sufficiently approximate to the act of procurement to amount an attempt
• R v Toothill: crucial step took
• MTMP- R v Boyle and Boyle: all defendant had to do was to enter the building to commit the full crime
• MTMP - R v Jones: all the defendant had to do was pull the trigger to commit the full crime
• MTMP - A-G Ref No1 of 1992: all defendant has to do was to penetrate the victim to commit the full crime
• Mens rea s1(1): “if with intent to commit an offence“
• This is normally an intent to commit the full crime, and recklessness will not suffice - AG ref no3 1992 and R v Khan
• Khan case: he was reckless as to her consent at the time sexual offences act was specific intent crime, so was not an attempt as had been reckless to the consent and not intentional
• R v Whybrow: mens rea is an intent to kill for attempted murder
• R v Easom: D went through the contents of the victims bag but did not take anything so attempted theft needs to have intent to steal
• R v Millard: there was no attempt, no intent and recklessness will not suffice
• R v Pace and Rogers: The court of appeal stated defendant must have an intent to commit all the elements of the offence not just some of them. Suspicion was insufficient
• A-G Ref No.3 of 1992: need intent to damage property that could be reckless as to endangering life
• S1(2): factual impossibility- can be guilty of attempting a crime, even if it is impossible to commit the crime as long as the defendant believes it was possible
• S1(3) - legal impossibility - if the facts of the case had been as he believed to be, his intention would be so regarded
• Shivpuri - D thought transporting cocaine was talcum powder
• Anderton v Ryan: ‘objectively innocent‘. D could not be convicted for something she believed but turned out to be wrong
• R v Jones: even though ‘Amy’ was not a real 12-year-old, D was still convicted for attempting the impossible