W8 – INCHOATE AND PRE-EMPTIVE OFFENCES
1) In what sense is a pre-emptive offence ‘remote’ with respect to the harm to an
interest protected by the legal system?
Needs to reach a threshold of committing the crime.
2) In light of your reply to the previous question, would you characterise criminal
attempt as a pre-emptive offence? If so, why so? If not, why not?
You could argue that an attempt is a pre-emptive offence in the event that for example
you aim a gun at someone’s head but you decide not to even attempt to shoot and you
lower it back down so technically you didn’t attempt to kill the person at all and all
the offence is, is just a possession of a weapon that you had intent to use but did not
fulfil the use of the firearm similar to a pre-emptive offence. HOWEVER:
A pre-emptive offence is not an attempt and I would not characterise attempt as pre-
emptive offence. The intention element is NON-EXISTENT in simply possessing
a weapon whereas an attempt involves some form of intent and some way in which
you associated yourself with the use of the gun in a scenario, even aiming the gun in
my opinion is an attempt no matter how harsh this may sound because you have
passed the merely preparatory stage.
3) Consider the offence of fraud by misrepresentation. Should that offence be
characterised as a complete offence, an inchoate offence, or a pre-emptive
offence, or some combination of these? What sort of conduct would constitute
attempted fraud by misrepresentation?
Fraudulent misrepresentation is committed when someone lies or misrepresents an
important fact about in order to cause or induce the other party to enter into
something.
COMPLETE: the offence has been committed.
INCHOATE (incomplete): a crime of preparing for, or seeking to commit another
crime. It is conduct deemed criminal without actual harm being done, provided that
the harm that would have occurred is one the law tries to prevent.
PRE-EMPTIVE: a person is arrested prior to committing a crime. Sometimes viewed
as against the principles of democracy. It is distinct from an arrest on a charge of
conspiracy to commit a crime.
inchoate because it will have led to an offence, or pre-emptive because you may be
caught out by an external party that you are behaving fraudulently and
misrepresenting something important to the other party.
4) Given the availability of the offences of encouraging and assisting crime –
introduced with the Serious Crime Act 2007 – are there any reasons to retain
the offence of conspiracy?
Complicity = actual offence be committed by principle before anyone can be held
liable as an accomplice. Not accessorial; full offence! Not derivative.
A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime in the
future,
Part 2 of the Act outlines Inchoate Offences, 44 onwards.
Note that conspiracy is down to a simple agreement so there are plans to commit the
plan and there is no need to BELIEVE if the offence will be committed you just have
1) In what sense is a pre-emptive offence ‘remote’ with respect to the harm to an
interest protected by the legal system?
Needs to reach a threshold of committing the crime.
2) In light of your reply to the previous question, would you characterise criminal
attempt as a pre-emptive offence? If so, why so? If not, why not?
You could argue that an attempt is a pre-emptive offence in the event that for example
you aim a gun at someone’s head but you decide not to even attempt to shoot and you
lower it back down so technically you didn’t attempt to kill the person at all and all
the offence is, is just a possession of a weapon that you had intent to use but did not
fulfil the use of the firearm similar to a pre-emptive offence. HOWEVER:
A pre-emptive offence is not an attempt and I would not characterise attempt as pre-
emptive offence. The intention element is NON-EXISTENT in simply possessing
a weapon whereas an attempt involves some form of intent and some way in which
you associated yourself with the use of the gun in a scenario, even aiming the gun in
my opinion is an attempt no matter how harsh this may sound because you have
passed the merely preparatory stage.
3) Consider the offence of fraud by misrepresentation. Should that offence be
characterised as a complete offence, an inchoate offence, or a pre-emptive
offence, or some combination of these? What sort of conduct would constitute
attempted fraud by misrepresentation?
Fraudulent misrepresentation is committed when someone lies or misrepresents an
important fact about in order to cause or induce the other party to enter into
something.
COMPLETE: the offence has been committed.
INCHOATE (incomplete): a crime of preparing for, or seeking to commit another
crime. It is conduct deemed criminal without actual harm being done, provided that
the harm that would have occurred is one the law tries to prevent.
PRE-EMPTIVE: a person is arrested prior to committing a crime. Sometimes viewed
as against the principles of democracy. It is distinct from an arrest on a charge of
conspiracy to commit a crime.
inchoate because it will have led to an offence, or pre-emptive because you may be
caught out by an external party that you are behaving fraudulently and
misrepresenting something important to the other party.
4) Given the availability of the offences of encouraging and assisting crime –
introduced with the Serious Crime Act 2007 – are there any reasons to retain
the offence of conspiracy?
Complicity = actual offence be committed by principle before anyone can be held
liable as an accomplice. Not accessorial; full offence! Not derivative.
A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime in the
future,
Part 2 of the Act outlines Inchoate Offences, 44 onwards.
Note that conspiracy is down to a simple agreement so there are plans to commit the
plan and there is no need to BELIEVE if the offence will be committed you just have
