Attempts have long been
criminalised in the Common
Law
R v White (1910):
Mother-Son-Heartattack-Son
Poison-Not Linked-Attempted Murder.
Judges have struggled
with the AR of
attempts. (Deciding
how close D had to get
to the full offence.)
Judges have developed a
number of tests in Common Law
(JP)
E.g: The Proximity Test.
Eagleton
Robinson: Jeweller-Hid
Stock-Tied Self Up-Called
Police-D
Found+Confessed-Quashed-Not
Rang Insurance-Acts Not
Immediately Concerned With
Substantive Offence.
Couldn't be convicted of
attempting the impossible.
REFORM REQUIRED!
Criminal Attempts Act (1981)
Definition of Attempts
S.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act (1981)
An act which is more than merely
preparatory towards commission of the
full offence.
Sentencing
S.4(1) CAA (1981)
An attempt will be punishable to the same
extent as the substantive offence.
Actus Reus of Attempts
S.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act (1981)
An act which is more than merely
preparatory towards commission of the
full offence.
MTMP not explained further!
S.4(3) CAA (1981): Matter for the Jury to decide
As Juries (at trial) lead to
inconsistent decisions, on Appeal,
Judges have tried to explain MTMP
further, and give guidance.
More Than Merely Preparatory
R v Jones: D-Sawn off
Shotgun-Entered V's Car-Pointed
Gun-D Got Gun-V=Attempted Murder
Boyle and Boyle: D's-Door-Locks
Broken-Attempted Burglary-CA: Full
Offence=D's Entering Building, Any
attempt to Gain Access=Attempt
AG's Reference:
Man-Girl-Shed-Dragged-Attempted Rape-Argued
Against-Flaccid Penis-Dragging into Shed=MTMP
Less Than Merely Preparatory
R v Geddes: Man-Boys
Toilet-School-Weapons
For Kidnap.
MTMP = Moving from
Preparation and Planning
to Implementation and
Execution.
R v Gullefer: Greyhound
Race-Dog
Loosing-Man-Track-Void
Race-Not "Embarked on
the Crime Proper"-Not
Started Get Money Back.
MTMP = When D has
Embarked on the Crime
Proper
R v Campbell: Man-Post
Office-Outside-Note+Fake
Gun-Rob-Changed
Mind-Quashed-NO MTMP
Criminal Attempts Act (1981)
Mens Rea of Attempts
Common Law - Pre-1981
R v Mohan: Ruled "Intent is an
essential ingredient for attempts."
"Recklessness is never sufficient for
MR."
Now S.1(1) CAA (1981)
Mens Rea is usually the same as the full substantive offence. However:
Recklessness as a consequence is never
sufficient as MR for attempts
Millard v Vernon: D-Football
Stand-Attempted Criminal
Damage-CA-Recklessness (as
a consequence) is not
sufficient MR for attempted
crimes, specific intention is
required.
Recklessness may be
sufficient for 1 part of the
offence.
AG's Reference
Recklessness as to
circumstances may be sufficient
for attempted rape.
R v Khan and Khan
D can be liable if they intended
to have sexual intercourse but
were "reckless as to consent."
MR for Attempted Murder
R v Whybrow: Showed
"Intention to Kill" rather than
"Intention to Kill or Cause
GBH" as it is for Murder.
MR is more onerous for Attempt
than Full Offence.
Follows CL position
Attempting the Impossible
Legal Impossibility
D intends to commit an offence, but
is apprehended. However, the
offence in question is not actually an
offence. It is Legal!
CAA (1981) does not deal with
Legal Impossibilities.
R v Taaffe: HoL held D could not be
guilty of attempting a crime which
was legally impossible
AO2: Defence was the Smugglers Defence which
left a gaping lacuna in the Law of Attempts.
Factual Impossibility.
D intends to commit an offence, but it
is found that it is factually impossible
to complete the full offence.
Pre-1981
Haughton v Smith: You cannot be
convicted of attempting a factually
impossible offence.
S.1(2) CAA (1981)
It is possible convict a defendant who
has attempted a factually impossible
offence.
Anderton v Ryan: HoL failed to interpret the new
statute properly as D was quashed of the offence.
R v Shivpuri: HoL used Practice
Statement (1966) for the 1st time
in a criminal trial to overrule the
earlier decision in Anderton v
Ryan to convict of a factually
impossible offence.