Attempts

• 2 .R v Gullefer


  D had not actually stolen so it was merely preparatory
• 2. R v Campbell


  he had not actually entered the post office to threaten staff even though he had done all prior steps so it was merely preparatory
• 2. R v Geddes


  D had the mens rea but not the actus reus as he did not at any time approach the victim so merely preparatory
• 2. R v AG Ref NO.1 '92


  The defendant had embarked on the offence of rape itself because his acts were more than merely preparatory
• 2. R v Boyle and Boyle


  More than merely preparatory as all they had to do was enter the building to commit the full crime
• 2. R v Jones


  most of the acts were preparatory but getting into the victim's car an pointing the gun was more than merely preparatory
• 3. R v White


  You cannot murder someone that is already dead as it is physically impossible
• 3. Anderton v Ryan


  D cannot be convicted for something she believed as it is legally impossible
• 3. R v Shivpuri


  D was liable for attempting the impossible as he knowingly dealt in prohibited drugs even though what he had was not illegal
• 3. R v Jones (2007)


  D was convicted of even though it was impssible for him to commit the offence as the girl did not exist because it was the female officer that arrived. But he intended the attempted rape.
• 4. R v Mohan


  The intent for attempt is specific in that if D intends to bring about the consequence whether desired or not they will be liable
• 4. R v Whybrow


  Even though a murder charge requires intent to kill or cause GBH, an attempted murder charge requires specific intention to kill
• 4. R v Miard and Vernon


  reckless was enough for the crime but for attempts a specific intent is needed
• 4. R v Pace and Rogers


  all attempts of a crime needs to be satisfied, the fact that the defendants had suspected that the property was stolen was not enough to establish that they had that intent
• 4. R v Z


  the intent for murder must be specific intent intent to cause GBH is not enough