Inchoate offences (attempts and conspiracy)

Attempts overview (key law - CAA)

Criminal Attempts Act 1981 / AR = more than merely preparatory / MR = with an intent to commit an offence / MR is key

H v S 1975 - impossibility (before CAA)

Haughton v Smith 1975 / police intercepted stolen lorry containing corned beef, D intended to receive the goods believing they were stolen / lords held D not guilty of attempting to handle stolen goods (impossible, not a full offence) / established how legal impossibility prevents attempt liability

H v S 1975 - overturned by CAA

Criminal Attempts Act 1981 reformed this / as long as MR for a crime, can be liable regardless of if crime was impossible to commit

A v R 1985 - overturned by R v S 1986 - shows the changing importance of MR

Anderton v Ryan 1985 / Lords quashed conviction - complete act wouldn’t have been a crime as it wasn’t stolen (D’s belief didn’t mater) / overruled by R v Shivpuri 1986 - belief = enough for a crime

AR in depth

More than ‘merely preparatory’ / Smith and Hogan - narrow definition prevents over-criminalisation (acts not just thoughts being convicted)

AR case - R v G 1990 + Lord L quote

R v Gullefer 1990 / G bet on greyhound, losing, jumped on track to disrupt race - but failed / Court found him innocent - G’s acts were merely preparatory (didn’t come close to stealing the dog) / Lord Lane: must ‘embark on the crime proper’

AR case - R v J 1990 (applying Gullefer)

R v Jones 1990 / D got in a car, pointed gun at V, convicted for attempted murder / upheld - D went beyond mere preparation

Further AR cases - R v C 1991 + M v DPP 2009 / plus key note on embarking (R v R 2008)

R v Campbell 1991 - conviction quashed, not beyond mere preparation / Mason v DPP 2009 - quashed, hadn’t ’embarked on the crime proper’ / note: embarking varies with crime at hand (R v R 2008 - sexual activity with a child = embarking earlier, stricter)

MR in depth - R v S 2007 - supporting the strict view

R v Saik 2007 / court ruled Saik wasn’t guilty because he didn’t have the intention/knowledge of every element of the underlying offence

P and R 2014 - strict approach to MR

Pace and Roger’s 2014 / P and R bought metal from undercover police, suspected it was stolen / Court quashed the conviction - mere suspicion not enough (shows strict MR approach)

R v K 1990 - broad view of MR

R v Khan 1990 / 4 Ds charged with attempted rape of 16yo girl / court upheld convictions - MR for rape and attempted rape = same / shows stricter approaches in SA

Conspiracy overview - def + key law (CLA)

Conspiracy = agreement between 2 or more people to commit an illegal act / Criminal Law Act 1977 - s1 defines conspiracy (none if spouses, one under age of criminal responsibility, one is intended victim) / cannot be purely in mind, must be some spoken/written words or acts

Rationales for conspiracy offences (I-D, DofL, EofS)

Inter-dependency - some crimes require 2/more people, preventative / divisions for labour - easier for crimes to be committed as a group / economies of scale - more people = more crimes

DPP v N 1978 - intention + resulting in a crime

DPP v Nock 1978 / Nock and Alsford agreed to produce cocaine, powder impossible to create cocaine out of / Lords quashed convictions - agreed course of conduct cannot result in an offence, no criminal conspiracy (so must result in a crime)

Criticisms of conspiracy

Agreement = too remote from any harm-doing, over-criminalisation / evidential difficulties / racial issues

R v A 1986 - outlining terms for MR in conspiracy

R v Anderson 1986 / D injured and stopped his participation, argued didn’t believe plan would work / Lords still found him guilty - MR even if D intends to play some part, doesn’t matter if final outcome unintended + believing plot was impossible = not a defence

R v O and others 2025 - issue of racism in conspiracy

R v ONI and Others 2025 / O all convicted for gang-related offences and conspiracy / court quashed conviction of one of the D’s (improper use of evidence like rap music, wrong identification) / using drill music and cultural artefacts = controversial use of evidence

Academic - Clarkson (on attempts) - overview + quote

Clarkson argues criminal attempt law is incoherent / ‘Statutory redefinition of the crime of attempt is needed’

R v E 1991 - MR limiting conspiracy

R v Edwards 1991 / question if an agreement without genuine intent to follow through still constituted as conspiracy / Court found E innocent - lacked the MR, limitation on scope of conspiracy

R v D 2003 - attempts, AR drawing the line

R v Dagnall 2003 / D threatened to rape woman, dragged her to another location / court found him guilty - actions (dragging, not threat) sufficiently close to full attempt / shows how case law draws the line at actual physical contact/harm to person/property

Academic criticisms - Garvey - subjective vs objective (core debate)

Garvey argues attempts should focus on intent (subjective), against the objective approach that requires near-completion (Dagnall) / argues approach doesn’t truly prevent crime