Attempts

• What is an attempt?


  An attempt is where a person tries to commit an offence, but for whatever reason fails to complete it.
• S1(1) of the Criminal Attempts 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 of an attempt

  – this must be a positive act on the way to the commission of the full offence. A-G’s Ref 93 - It must be an act that is ‘more than merely preparatory’ to the commission of the main offence. This is a matter of fact for the jury to decide. R v Campbell (NOT attempted robbery) Boyle v Boyle (attempted burglary)
• AR 1 POSITIVE ACT

  There must be a positive act on the way to the commission of the full offence. (A-G Ref 93)
• AR 2 - MORE THAN MERELY PREP


  Must be an act that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the full offence.
• AR 2.5 - JUDGE DECIDE

  The judge decides whether the act is more than merely preparatory.

  R v Campbell (not attempted) Boyle v Boyle (was attempted)
• MR of Attempt


  –There must be direct intent for the completed offence.

  • For murder, D must have direct intent to kill (Intent for GBH not enough) R v Whybrow (attempted murder) R v Jones
  • D must have ‘actual’ intent for crimes like theft, R v Easom
  • No MR of recklessness for an attempt, R v Millard and Vernon
• MR 1 - direct intent


  There must be direct intent for the completed offence
• MR 2 - MURDER 


  For attempted murder, D must have direct intent to kill, NOT GBH.

  R v Whybrow R v Jones
• MR 3 ACTUAL INTENT

  D needs actual intent for crimes like theft R v Easom
• MR 4 NO RECKLESSNESS

  Can't have recklessness for the attempt of a crime R v Millard and Vernon
• What's the legislation for attempting the impossible?

  S1(2) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981
• Attempting the impossible

  S1(2) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981:

  Ø Attempting the impossible - Where the attempted offence is impossible to carry out, the accused will still be liable for an attempt if he has carried out the actus reus, i.e. he has gone beyond mere preparation, whilst having the mens rea for the completed offence. R v Shivpuri (attempted drug smuggling), R v Jones (attempted inciting of child for sex)
• A - G Ref (no 1 of 1992)


  Defendant tried raping the victim whilst intoxicated. Unable to attempt penetration but pulled her behind a hedge laid on top of her and interfered.

  More than merely preparatory.
• R v Gullefer


  D jumped onto the tracks of a greyhound race in an attempt to distract the dogs. He said later that he hoped the stewards would declare "no race" cancelling the race so he could recover the stake that he had placed on a dog which was losing. Charged with attempted theft.

  beyond mere prep
• R v Geddes


  D discovered in a school toilet of a school which he had no connection to with a rucksack which contained rope, tape and a knife. He left and discarded the bag. Convicted of false imprisonment, he appealed.

  Didn't surpass preparation. Appeal allowed.
• R v Campbell


  D planned to rob a post office. He drove outside of the post office, and carried an imitation gun and a threatening note in his pocket. Arrested before he entered the post office.

  Acts were merely preparatory there for not guilty.
• Boyle v Boyle


  D damaged the door of a house that he intended to burgle as he intended to enter as a trespasser and had the intention to steal.

  
  

  Breaking down the door is more than merely prep.
• Tosti


  Attempted to burgle a barn. They inspected the padlock on the door but ran off when they realised they were being watched.

  The jury found acts more than merely prep due to where they parked their cars and the act of checking the lock.
• R v Jones

  D attempted to murder V. His acts were way more than merely preparatory as he sawed the end of the shot gun, prepped the gun and pointed it at the V.
• R v Whybrow


  D built electric device to give his wife an electric shock in the bath.

  Only attempt to kill will suffice for attempted murder.
• Easom


  Police set up D with a handbag to steal from.

  Not guilty as he had conditional intent not actual.
• ATG Ref (no 1 and 2 of 1979)


  The court of appeal held that conditional intent was enough to impose liability for an attempted offence if the charge doesn't relate to specific items.
• R v Millard and Vernon


  Defendants were two drunk football supporters. Attempted criminal damage on a wall.

  mere recklessness not sufficient full intent required
• R v Taylor


  Approached a stack of corn with a lit lighter intending to set it on fire. As he approached he saw a police officer which deterred him.

  Irrelevant whether the D withdrew by choice or not, as there can be no defence of withdrawal on public policy grounds.
• Anderton V Ryan 


  Impossible for D to commit full offence, held that an innocent act does not turn into an attempt merely by virtue of the defendants criminal intent. Overruled a year later.
• Shivpuri


  D persuaded to act as a drug carrier. He believed he was harbouring heroin. It was in fact not drugs.

  Judge used practice statement to overrule previous decisions made in anderton v ryan. Can attempt to do impossible.
• R v Jones


  D had written graffiti in train stations seeking girls aged 8-13 for sex. A female police officer had pretended to be a 12 year old as she responded to the graffiti. D convicted inciting a child under the age of 13 for sex. D appealed. Appeal failed. Acts more than merely preparatory.