Attempts

What is the definition of an ‘attempt’?

According to 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.’

What is a case where the defendants acts were ‘more than merely preparatory’?

Attorney-generals ref (no1 of 1992)(1993) - d dragged a girl into a shed. He lowered his trousers and interfered with her private parts, but his penis remained flaccid. At trial, he argued that this made it impossible for him to commit rape. CofA upheld conviction - the act of lowering his trousers and interfering with her private parts was ‘more than merely preparatory’.

What are 2 cases where the defendants couldn’t be convicted of an attempt because their actions were ‘merely preparatory’?

Campbell 1990 - d was in the street outside a post office, wearing sunglasses and had a threatening note and an imitation gun in his pocket. He couldn’t be convicted because his actions were ‘merely preparatory’. If he’d entered the post office, he’d likely have been convicted.

Geddes 1996 - d was found in the toilet block of a school with a large knife, rope, and some masking tape. He had no right to be in the school, but hadn’t interacted with any students. Couldn’t be convicted of attempted abduction.

What are the 2 questions that must be considered before convicting D of an attempt, based on the case of R v Geddes 1996?

1. Had the accused move from planning/preparation to execution/implementation?

2. Had the accused done an act showing he was actually trying to commit the offence, or had he only got as far as getting ready, or putting himself in a position to commit the full offence?

What are 2 case examples where the defendants were found guilty of an attempt?

Boyle and Boyle 1987 - D’s were found standing by a door, which had a broken lock and hinge. Once D’s had entered, they’d be committing burglary, so trying to gain entry was an attempt.

Tosti 1997 - d went to a premises with metal cutting equipment. He examined a padlock on the door, it didnt damage it. D was found guilty of attempted burglary, as he had the metal cutting equipment, and had examined the lock in preparation, which was more than merely preparatory.

What is the (usual) requirement surrounding the mens rea of attempts?

D must normally have the same intention as would be required for the full offence. If prosecution can’t prove that D had that intention, then D isn’t guilty of the attempt.

What are 2 cases where D didnt have the required mens rea, and therefore wasn’t found guilty?

R v Easom 1971 - D picked up a bag in a cinema, rummaged through it and then put it back without taking anything from it. D was convicted but then successfully appealed on basis that there was no evidence that D intended to steal anything in the bag.

R v Husseyn 1977 - D and another man were seen loitering near the back of a van. When the police approached, they ran off. D was convicted of attempting to steal some equipment that was in the van. The conviction was later quashed, on the same basis as R v Easom 1971.

What are the rules surrounding the mens rea of attempted murder?

The mens rea for attempted murder involves proving a higher level of intention than for the full offence of murder. The mens rea for murder requires prosecution to prove that D had the intention to kill OR cause GBH. The mens rea of attempted murder requires for the prosecution to prove an intention to kill.

What is a case where a conviction was quashed based on the fact that recklessness isn’t enough for an attempt, even where recklessness would suffice for the completed offence?

R v Millard and Vernon 1987 - D repeatedly pushed against a wooden fence on a stand at a football ground. The prosecution alleged that they were trying to break it, and were convicted of attempted criminal damage. C of A quashed their conviction.

What is a case where there was an exception to the rules surrounding recklessness due to the fact that the act involves endangering life?

Attorney generals ref (no3 of 1992)(1994) - D threw petrol bomb towards car containing 4 men. It missed and smashed against a wall. He was charged with attempting to commit arson with intent to endanger life. C of A held that it was necessary to prove that D intended to damage property, but it was only necessary to prove that he was reckless as to whether life would be endangered.

What are the rules surrounding offences that are impossible to commit?

Previously under common law, H of L held that where a crime was legally or physically impossible to commit, D wouldn’t be guilty of attempting to commit it.

Now under Criminal Attempts act contains Subsection 1(2) which states:

‘A person may be guilty of attempting to commit an offence… even though the facts are such that the commission. Of the offence is impossible.’

What case is an example of D being found guilty of attempting something impossible to commit in their circumstances?

Shivpuri 1986 - D agreed to receive a suitcase that he thought contained prohibited drugs. It was delivered to him, but it actually contained vegetable matter. D was convicted of attempting to be knowingly concerned in dealing with prohibited drugs.

What decision did the House of Lords make after the case of Shivpuri?

As a result of thus case, House of Lords decided to combine ss1(2) and 1(3) of Criminal Attempts act. This east a person could be guilty of an attempt even if commission of full offence was impossible. Shivpuri believed that the suitcase contained prohibited drugs and his intention was to deal in the drugs, so under s1(3) this was regarded as an intention to commit the offence.