PRELIMINARY OFFENCES: ATTEMPTS

  • definition- s1(1) 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.’

  • AR- D must do an act which is MORE THNAN MERELY PREPARATORY to the commission of the offence

  • MR- with intent to do (full) offence

MORE THAN MERELY PREPARATORY

The phrase ‘more than merely preparatory’ is not defined in CAA 1981 so a judge will first consider whether there is enough evidence to put it to the jury, who then consider whether D has gone beyond preparation.

R V CAMPBELL- D arrested and found with fake firearm and threatening note walking towards post office. Arrested by police before entered. Said at time of arrest decided didn’t want o go through with robbery. No evidence his acts were more than merely preparatory as he hadn’t entered yet.

R V GULLEFER- D backed greyhound in race, realised was gonna lose so distracted race so it’s become invalid and reclaim his betting stake. CoA held not guilty: hadn’t EMBARKED ON THE CRIME PROPER, as he hadn’t yet reclaimed money.

R V JONES: Wanted to kill the woman he was having an affair with new man. Got gun licence, loaded and shortened, got in V’s car and pointed gun at him. All preparatory acts and when he got in car he had ‘embarked on crime proper’.

CONDITIONAL INTENT

MR of attempt is ‘with intention’

R V EASMON- D rummaged through bag but found nothing of value- not guilty.

AG REF (NO 1) 1979- CoA held the intention to steal “anything that was worth stealing could form the basis of an attempt charge if the indictment was drafted carefully”

AG REF (NO 2) 1979- D’s acquitted of attempted aggravated arson, judge ruled that recklessness on part of D as to whether life would be put in danger as a result of the intended damage was, on an interpretation of Criminal Damage Act 1971 s1(2)m, insufficient to convict and that there must be an intention.

RECKLESSNESS

MILLARD V VERNON: not normal sufficient MR for attempt. D’s trying to break fence, but quashed conviction as there was no proof of intention, only recklessness.

AG REF (No 3) 1992: Can be convicted if they were reckless as to some element of AR.

R V GEDDES: School found D’s bag containing: knife, rope and tape- D arrested. No attempt as he had not yet identified and selected his V and made any attempt to approach a student.

R V TOTSI AND WHITE: D’s went to barn to try break in- examined padlock but got disturbed and fled. Acts seen as preparatory (CoA), and part of the commission of the crime itself.

IMPOSSIBILITY

2 different types:

  • physical impossibility

  • legal impossibility

Under s1(2) and 1(3) of CAA 1981, all types of impossibility can lead to liability

PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILIY

HAUGHTON V SMITH: cannot be guilty of handing goods not legally stolen. As Viscount Dilhorne said :A man taking his own umbrella from a club, thinking it the property of someone else, does not steal.”

LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY

ANDERTON V RYAN: attempted receipt of goods mistakenly thought to be stolen; initially convicted.

R V SHIVPURI: overruled Anderton using practice statement, conviction possible even if actual crime impossible, focusing on intent

INADEQUACY

R V WHYBROW: for attempted murder, prosecution must prove a specific intent to kill. D attempted to injure wife by electric bath but was convicted of attempted murder.