Attempts

• Attempts:

  • This is where a person tried to commit an offence but - for whatever reason - fails to do so. It can be attached to any indictable offence.
  • Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s.1(1) state:
  • "if, with intent to commit and offence... a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of an offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence".
• Attempts - Actus Reus:

  • An Act
  • Which is more than merely preparatory towards committing an offence.
• Attempts - Mens Rea:

  • Intent to commit the full offence
  • Conditional intent is possible
  • Recklessness is not enough
• Actus Reus - An Act:

  • Requires an act - omission is not enough
  • Was confirmed in case R v Nevard 2006
  • D attacked his wife with axe and then prevented her from calling 999. Found guilty of attempted murder due to his other actions, but court clarified that failing to call for help (an omission) would not have been enough.
  • The Law Commission in 2009 recommended that omissions should be included - but this is not yet law.
• Actus Reus - Which is more than merely preparatory towards committing the offence:

  • It appears from the case law that D must have moved past the first act and embarked on the crime proper.
  • It is sometimes difficult to say what is just preparation and what goes beyond preparation - it depends on the fact within each case:
  • R v Gullefer 1987
  • AG's Ref (1 of 1992) 1993
• Actus Reus - Which is more than merely preparatory towards committing the offence:

  • R v Gullefer 1987:
  • D jumped onto greyhound track to attempt to stop the race and get back the money he had placed in bets.
  • Was not guilty of attempted theft as this was seen as mere preparation to steal.
  • Going beyond preparation would have had to involve going to the betting point to ask for a refund - which he did not do.
• Actus Reus - Which is more than merely preparatory towards committing the offence:

  • AG's Ref (1 of 1992) 1993:
  • D attempted to rape V but could not get an erection. He had dragged her into a shed and taken down his trousers.
  • He was guilty of attempted rape - was more than preparatory.
• Actus Reus - Which is more than merely preparatory towards committing the offence:

  • R v Geddes 1996 says there are 2 main factors to look at:

  1. Has D moved from planning to execution or implementation
  2. Has D done an act showing they are actually trying to commit the offence, or has D only gone so far as getting ready to commit it?
• R v Boyle and Boyle 1987:

  • Two defendants were found standing by a door with a broken lock and hinge.
  • Convicted of attempted burglary - this was more than preparation (if they had gone any further they would have committed the full offence)
• R v Jones 1990:

  • The D wanted to kill his ex-girlfriend's new partner, so he bought shotgun, sawed it off, got into V's car with helmet and visor to conceal his identity, then pointed gun at V. Victim managed to disarm the defendant.
  • Convicted of attempted murder - did not matter that D had not pulled the trigger or released the safety on the gun. Getting into the car was going beyond mere preparation (although all prior actions were only preparatory)
• R v Tosti and White 1997:

  • D took metal cutting equipment to a warehouse and hid it in a hedge, then proceeded to inspect the padlock before being caught by police.
  • Convicted of attempted burglary - the next stage was entry, which would be the full offence.
• R v Dagnall 2003:

  • D grabbed woman and said he was going to "drag her into an alley" before the police arrived and arrested him.
  • He was convicted of attempted rape
• R v Campbell 1990:

  • D stood outside post office with imitation gun, sunglasses and threatening note in his pocket. He left and returned minutes later with a slightly changed appearance before police stopped him.
  • Not guilty of attempted robbery, even though he admitted his intention to carry out the robbery. His actions up to that point had been only preparation.
• R v Geddes 1996:

  • D was found in boys toilet at school which he had no reason to be in. Was holding knife, masking tape and rope. He didn't make any attempt to contact any students.
  • Not guilty of attempted kidnap and false imprisonment as he had not attempted to contact any pupils - so this was only mere preparation.
• Mason v DPP 2009:

  • D was drunk and about to drive his car - he opened the door but was threatened with knife and car was stolen.
  • Not guilty of attempting to drive over limit (on appeal) as opening the door was only mere preparation to drive.
• Mens Rea - Intent to commit the full offence:

  • D must have intended to commit the offence they are accused of attempting.
  • R v Mohan:
  • Direct intention = D's main aim or purpose