Criminal Attempt
Section 1(1) of Criminal Attempts Act 1981 states that a person would be guilty
when he does an act that is more than preparation of the crime and the D has the
intention of committing the crime. There are three main steps for committing a
crime: 1) the intention to commit that offence, 2) make preparations for
committing that crime, 3) acting upon for committing the crime.
The Actus Reus of this crime is that the D does an act that must be more than
prepared. The test for more than preparatory is still considered as a proximity
based test. The judge determines whether the act of the D are being capable of
being more than preparatory. As in “Gullefer 1990” the D tried to stop the race as
on the dof he placed bet was losing. His main purpose for interrupting the game
was to recover his money but he failed and stewards chose not to stop the race.
The D was said to be guilty of attempting theft of stake money. The COA held that
when he was arrested, he wasn’t in the action of committing the offence of theft
so he wasn’t guilty of theft. This was a strict approach. Moreover, the similar
approach was taken in “R v Campbell 1991” the D was convicted of attempted
robbery. The D was possessing a gun and a threatening note but his argument
was he had changed his mind and he was arrested before he could left that place.
The courts held that the D actions were regarded as just to be merely preparatory
and thus, his conviction was quashed. This strict approach was relaxed in “R v
Jones 1990” the D was jealous with the V and he entered into the Victims’s car
when it was standing still and gave the v a letter. While the V was reading the
letter, the D pointed the gun towards the V. The V grabbed the gun and somehow
manages to throw it out from the car. The D was held guilty of attempted murder.
The Mens Rea of this offence is to commit a crime of specific intent. This means
that the D intended to commit the crime that is of substantive nature. For
example: as in the crime of attempted the murder the D must have the intention
to specifically kill, if he just intended to kill or to cause GBH then it wouldn’t be
attempted murder. As in “Whybrow 1951” the D gave an electric shock to wife
when she was bathing. The jury including Parker J demonstrated that D intention
was to kill his wife, so he would be guilty of attempted murder. Moreover, for
proving the requirements of this offence, the Prosecution must show that the D
intended to commit the crime, so if the D was just being reckless then the D
Section 1(1) of Criminal Attempts Act 1981 states that a person would be guilty
when he does an act that is more than preparation of the crime and the D has the
intention of committing the crime. There are three main steps for committing a
crime: 1) the intention to commit that offence, 2) make preparations for
committing that crime, 3) acting upon for committing the crime.
The Actus Reus of this crime is that the D does an act that must be more than
prepared. The test for more than preparatory is still considered as a proximity
based test. The judge determines whether the act of the D are being capable of
being more than preparatory. As in “Gullefer 1990” the D tried to stop the race as
on the dof he placed bet was losing. His main purpose for interrupting the game
was to recover his money but he failed and stewards chose not to stop the race.
The D was said to be guilty of attempting theft of stake money. The COA held that
when he was arrested, he wasn’t in the action of committing the offence of theft
so he wasn’t guilty of theft. This was a strict approach. Moreover, the similar
approach was taken in “R v Campbell 1991” the D was convicted of attempted
robbery. The D was possessing a gun and a threatening note but his argument
was he had changed his mind and he was arrested before he could left that place.
The courts held that the D actions were regarded as just to be merely preparatory
and thus, his conviction was quashed. This strict approach was relaxed in “R v
Jones 1990” the D was jealous with the V and he entered into the Victims’s car
when it was standing still and gave the v a letter. While the V was reading the
letter, the D pointed the gun towards the V. The V grabbed the gun and somehow
manages to throw it out from the car. The D was held guilty of attempted murder.
The Mens Rea of this offence is to commit a crime of specific intent. This means
that the D intended to commit the crime that is of substantive nature. For
example: as in the crime of attempted the murder the D must have the intention
to specifically kill, if he just intended to kill or to cause GBH then it wouldn’t be
attempted murder. As in “Whybrow 1951” the D gave an electric shock to wife
when she was bathing. The jury including Parker J demonstrated that D intention
was to kill his wife, so he would be guilty of attempted murder. Moreover, for
proving the requirements of this offence, the Prosecution must show that the D
intended to commit the crime, so if the D was just being reckless then the D
