Attempts Essay Model Answer

• Prima facie, the defendant X may be charged with attempts (offence) in relation to (apply to scenario). An attempt crime is when a defendant wants to commit a criminal offence but is unable or unsuccessful in completing the actual offence.
• S.1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 states that the definition of attempts is:

  'If, with intent, he does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence.'
• Firstly, the actus reus of the attempt crime must be satisfied, this must be a positive act, not an omission. The defendant must have committed an act which is more than merely preparatory (MTMP). An act that is 'merely preparatory' (MP) is not an attempt but may be another offence such as conspiracy. There is no statutory definition of what MTMP means, but it involves going beyond just preparing for the crime and to be at a point at which the crime could happen.
• In R v Gullefer, Lord Land stated that MTMP meant 'when the merely preparatory act comes to an end and the defendant embarks on the crime proper.' This will vary from case to case, but it means that the defendant is at a point where the move from preparing for the crime to being ready to commit the crime.
• The Court of Appeal in Geddes set out 2 questions to determine if D's actions are more than merely preparatory:

  1. Has D moved from planning and preparation to execution and implementation? and
  2. Has D done an act which shows they were trying to commit the full offence?
• In the case of R v Boyle & Boyle, the defendant's were caught standing next to a broken lock and were convicted of attempted burglary as they had tried to gain entry which was enough for an attempt and embarked on the crime proper, it was therefore MTMP.
• R v Jones also illustrated another case where the actions of the defendant were deemed to be more than merely preparatory as the D was pointing a shotgun at the V. He was convicted of attempted murder as he only needed to pull the trigger to commit the full offence.
• However, unsuccessful attempts and cases where it was stated it was merely preparatory include R v Campbell, where although the D was outside a post office wearing a crash helmet, carrying a knife and had a threatening note demanding money, he was found not guilty as he had not entered the post office.
• The mens rea for attempt crimes is stated in s.1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 as intention to commit the full offence (confirmed in R v Millard and Vernon). This means that a finding of recklessness is not sufficient, however a finding of recklessness to a crime that has two parts to the mens rea may be sufficient as in the Att-Gen Ref No.3 of 1992. Murder is the exception as the mens rea of the full offence is 'malice aforethought, express or implied' whereas the mens rea for attempted crimes is 'intention to kill' only (R v Whybrow).
• Additionally, in R v Easom it was held that conditional intent (where the D will only commit a crime if they see a benefit) is generally not enough for an attempt crime. However, in the Att-Gen Ref (No. 1 and 2 of 1979), the Court of Appeal held that a conditional intent would be treated as a general intention to steal something.
• Finally, S.1(2) and S.1(3) shows that a D may be guilty of committing a physically (Anderton v Ryan) or legally (R v Shivpuri) impossible offence if they think they are actually doing so.
• Conclusion:

  Convicted - attempted (offence)

  Acquitted