ATTEMPTS
Attempts are defined by s.1(1) of the Criminal
Attempts Act 1981 and it states ‘where a person with the
relevant mens rea does an act which is more than merely
preparatory to the commission of an offence, he is guilty of
attempting to commit the crime’. This only applies to indictable
or triable either way offences.
RULES- The first element is the actus reus which is doing
an act that is more than merely preparatory. In R v Gullefer it
was held that this meant that d must have gone purely beyond
preparatory acts and embarked on the proper crime. IN AGR
1993 it was held that d did not need to perform last act before
crime proper nor did he need to have reached point of no
return. In R v Geddes it was held that two questions should be
asked; had the accused moved from planning to execution? and
had d done act attempted to commit full offence or was he only
getting ready? In R v Campbell it was held it was only merely
preoperatory. The following cases shows where there is more
than an attempt. In Boyle v Boyle it was held trying to gain
entry was an attempt. In R v Jones he was guilty of attempted
murder because he had done last act before the crim proper.
RULES – next part to prove is the mens rea . for an
attempt the d must have same intention as would be required
for a full offence. In R v Easom there was no evidence d had
intended to permanently deprive the owner of the bag so could
not be guilty. In R v Husseyn the conviction as quashed as he
was charged with attempting to steal driving equipment, but
his intention was to steal anything. IN AGR 1979 it was held if
d has conditional intent they can still be charged with an
attempt. For attempted murder a higher level of intention
needs to be proved. In R v Whybrow it was ruled that only
intention to kill was enough. In R v Millard and Vernon it was
held that recklessness is normally not sufficient enough for an
attempt. However, there is an exception where recklessness
can be sufficient to one part of the offence where there is
,intention for another part. in AGR it was held it had to be
proved d intended to damage property but also had to be
proved that he was reckless as to whether life would be
endangered.
RULES – next part is impossibility. The Criminal
Attempts act 1981 s1(2) states that d may be guilty of
attempting to commit offence even though the commission of
the offence is impossible’. In Aderton v Ryan it was held her
acts were innocent as recorder was not stolen. However, in R v
Shivpuri this decision was overruled. Subsection 1(3) states
a person can be guilty of an attempt even if committing the full
offence was impossible
BULGLARY SCENARIO
The Theft Act 1968 s9(1)a defines theft as
‘entering a building or part of a building with intent to
commit theft, grievous bodily harm or criminal
damage’. S9(1)b is defined as ‘having entered as
trespasser, stealing or inflicting or attempting to inflict
GBH’. The key difference is that for s9(1)a d needs to
only have intention to commit offences but with s9(1)b
d must commit offences.
The actus reus is ‘entering a building or part of
a building as at trespasser’ . the first part of the actus
reus is ‘entry’. In R v Brown it was held that entry
need simply to be effective, However, In R v Ryan it
was held that it was held that entry does not have to be
effective. The next part is ‘a building or part of a
building’. In B and S v Leathley it was held that a
building should be of considerable size and permenant.
,In Walkington it was held that there does not need to
be physical separation for specific section to qualify as
part of a building. In Seekings v Gould it was held
that it should not have wheels and be moveable. The
next part is a ‘trespasser’. This is someone who enters
a premises without permission. In Smith v Jones it
was held that if individual exceeds permission for entry
given this invalidates permission granted and they
become a trespasser.
For both sections the d must be at least
subjectively reckless as to whether they are trespassing
as seen in R v Cunnigham. The mens rea for s9(1)a is
‘intention to steal, inflict GBH or cause unlawful
damage at point of entry’. In AGR 1979 it was held
conditional intent suffices (where d enters intending to
steal anything they can find which they find worth
taking). For s9(1)b the d must have the mens rea for
theft or GBH when committing or attempting to commit
the actus reus of either of these.
INTOXICATION SCENARIO
Intoxication is where the defendant is unable to form
the necessary mens rea of an offence due to being under the
influence of an intoxicating substance such as alchol or drugs.
, Voluntary intoxication is where the defendant is at fault
for intoxicated state. For specific intent offences it can be a
defence because if d was intoxicated this means they could not
form mens rea of the offence due to intoxication. It is only a
partial defence for most specific intent offence In R v Sheehan
v Moore it was held the true test is whether because of the
intoxication that they did not form the intent. In R v Lipman It
was held that he was unable to form the mens rea. If this is true
d will be charged with basic intent offence e.g. manslaughter
instead of murder. In Attorney General v Gallagher
conviction for murder upheld as he had formed necessary mens
rea prior becoming drunk. For basic intent offences it cannot be
a defence. In DPP v Majewski it was considered a reckless
course of conduct, and this is enough to constitute as
necessary mens rea. Where d does not realise strength of
intoxicant there can still be a defence.
Involuntary intoxication is where the d is not at fault
for intoxicated state. It is a complete defence and a defence for
both basic intent and specific intent offences. It may also apply
to instances where prescribed medication is taken and has an
unpredictable effect. In R v Kingston it was held that if d
formed mens rea for offence before becoming intoxicated then
involuntary intoxication is not a defence.
D can be mistaken about key fact because they are
intoxicated. In the case of intoxication by mistake it depends on
what the mistake is about. If it is a specific intent offence there
is a defence is the mistake is about something which means d
did not have necessary mens rea for offence. If it a basic intent
offence the d has no defence. if mistake is about another
aspect such as the amount of force used in self-defence d will
have no defence as seen in R v Hatton. In R V O’Grady it was
held that d is not entitled to rely on mistake of fact which has
been induced by voluntary intoxication.
Attempts are defined by s.1(1) of the Criminal
Attempts Act 1981 and it states ‘where a person with the
relevant mens rea does an act which is more than merely
preparatory to the commission of an offence, he is guilty of
attempting to commit the crime’. This only applies to indictable
or triable either way offences.
RULES- The first element is the actus reus which is doing
an act that is more than merely preparatory. In R v Gullefer it
was held that this meant that d must have gone purely beyond
preparatory acts and embarked on the proper crime. IN AGR
1993 it was held that d did not need to perform last act before
crime proper nor did he need to have reached point of no
return. In R v Geddes it was held that two questions should be
asked; had the accused moved from planning to execution? and
had d done act attempted to commit full offence or was he only
getting ready? In R v Campbell it was held it was only merely
preoperatory. The following cases shows where there is more
than an attempt. In Boyle v Boyle it was held trying to gain
entry was an attempt. In R v Jones he was guilty of attempted
murder because he had done last act before the crim proper.
RULES – next part to prove is the mens rea . for an
attempt the d must have same intention as would be required
for a full offence. In R v Easom there was no evidence d had
intended to permanently deprive the owner of the bag so could
not be guilty. In R v Husseyn the conviction as quashed as he
was charged with attempting to steal driving equipment, but
his intention was to steal anything. IN AGR 1979 it was held if
d has conditional intent they can still be charged with an
attempt. For attempted murder a higher level of intention
needs to be proved. In R v Whybrow it was ruled that only
intention to kill was enough. In R v Millard and Vernon it was
held that recklessness is normally not sufficient enough for an
attempt. However, there is an exception where recklessness
can be sufficient to one part of the offence where there is
,intention for another part. in AGR it was held it had to be
proved d intended to damage property but also had to be
proved that he was reckless as to whether life would be
endangered.
RULES – next part is impossibility. The Criminal
Attempts act 1981 s1(2) states that d may be guilty of
attempting to commit offence even though the commission of
the offence is impossible’. In Aderton v Ryan it was held her
acts were innocent as recorder was not stolen. However, in R v
Shivpuri this decision was overruled. Subsection 1(3) states
a person can be guilty of an attempt even if committing the full
offence was impossible
BULGLARY SCENARIO
The Theft Act 1968 s9(1)a defines theft as
‘entering a building or part of a building with intent to
commit theft, grievous bodily harm or criminal
damage’. S9(1)b is defined as ‘having entered as
trespasser, stealing or inflicting or attempting to inflict
GBH’. The key difference is that for s9(1)a d needs to
only have intention to commit offences but with s9(1)b
d must commit offences.
The actus reus is ‘entering a building or part of
a building as at trespasser’ . the first part of the actus
reus is ‘entry’. In R v Brown it was held that entry
need simply to be effective, However, In R v Ryan it
was held that it was held that entry does not have to be
effective. The next part is ‘a building or part of a
building’. In B and S v Leathley it was held that a
building should be of considerable size and permenant.
,In Walkington it was held that there does not need to
be physical separation for specific section to qualify as
part of a building. In Seekings v Gould it was held
that it should not have wheels and be moveable. The
next part is a ‘trespasser’. This is someone who enters
a premises without permission. In Smith v Jones it
was held that if individual exceeds permission for entry
given this invalidates permission granted and they
become a trespasser.
For both sections the d must be at least
subjectively reckless as to whether they are trespassing
as seen in R v Cunnigham. The mens rea for s9(1)a is
‘intention to steal, inflict GBH or cause unlawful
damage at point of entry’. In AGR 1979 it was held
conditional intent suffices (where d enters intending to
steal anything they can find which they find worth
taking). For s9(1)b the d must have the mens rea for
theft or GBH when committing or attempting to commit
the actus reus of either of these.
INTOXICATION SCENARIO
Intoxication is where the defendant is unable to form
the necessary mens rea of an offence due to being under the
influence of an intoxicating substance such as alchol or drugs.
, Voluntary intoxication is where the defendant is at fault
for intoxicated state. For specific intent offences it can be a
defence because if d was intoxicated this means they could not
form mens rea of the offence due to intoxication. It is only a
partial defence for most specific intent offence In R v Sheehan
v Moore it was held the true test is whether because of the
intoxication that they did not form the intent. In R v Lipman It
was held that he was unable to form the mens rea. If this is true
d will be charged with basic intent offence e.g. manslaughter
instead of murder. In Attorney General v Gallagher
conviction for murder upheld as he had formed necessary mens
rea prior becoming drunk. For basic intent offences it cannot be
a defence. In DPP v Majewski it was considered a reckless
course of conduct, and this is enough to constitute as
necessary mens rea. Where d does not realise strength of
intoxicant there can still be a defence.
Involuntary intoxication is where the d is not at fault
for intoxicated state. It is a complete defence and a defence for
both basic intent and specific intent offences. It may also apply
to instances where prescribed medication is taken and has an
unpredictable effect. In R v Kingston it was held that if d
formed mens rea for offence before becoming intoxicated then
involuntary intoxication is not a defence.
D can be mistaken about key fact because they are
intoxicated. In the case of intoxication by mistake it depends on
what the mistake is about. If it is a specific intent offence there
is a defence is the mistake is about something which means d
did not have necessary mens rea for offence. If it a basic intent
offence the d has no defence. if mistake is about another
aspect such as the amount of force used in self-defence d will
have no defence as seen in R v Hatton. In R V O’Grady it was
held that d is not entitled to rely on mistake of fact which has
been induced by voluntary intoxication.
