ATTEMPTS LIABILITY
Liability MUST attach to a future principal offence - no liability for ‘attempts’ alone
Inchoate offences
- ‘Unfinished offences’
- Will generally not require D to have caused significant harm to a person or
property
- Can only operate in combination with a principal offence
- Irrelevant if principal offence ever comes about, D’s liability arises as soon
elements of inchoate offence is satisfied
- Challenge of setting the point at which D’s conduct justifies criminal
intervention
Attempt: D is criminalised for trying to commit a principal offence;
Principal offence - this refers to the offence (eg murder, theft, etc) that D is
attempting/conspiring/assisting or encouraging. This is also commonly referred to as
the ‘substantive offence’, the ‘full offence’, or the ‘future offence’;
Principal offender - where D is assisting or encouraging another to commit a
principal offence, the party assisted or encouraged is referred to as the principal
offender (P).
Criminal attempts
Offence of attempt criminalises D for doing more than merely preparatory acts
(beyond conspiracies) towards the commission of a principal offence she is trying to
commit.
- Commission by omission possible where D is under a legal duty to act
S.1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (CAA)
a person is guilty of an attempt “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...”
MENS REA: with intent to commit an offence
ACTUS REUS: person does an act which is more than merely preparatory
Evolution of the law/ TESTS
Pre CAA 1981 - i) Last act test & ii) Series of acts test.
Last act test:
Only allowed for attempted liability where D completed all acts that she believed
were necessary to commit the principal offence
Risk of not providing adequate protection for society.
, Series of acts test:
Resulted in liability for attempts where D’s act forms ‘part of a series of act which
would constitute [the] commission [of a principal offence] if it were not interrupted
However, D’s actions at early stages may not yet be sufficiently proximate to the
completion of the principal offence to be deserving of liability
Jones (1990)
- D got into the back seat of a car with V, and pointed a sawn-off shotgun at
him. Following a struggle, V escaped unharmed. D was charged with
attempted murder.
- HELD: conviction upheld on appeal. Even though D was at least three steps
away from completing the principal offence (he still had to remove the safety
catch, put his finger on the trigger, and pull it), his acts were still capable of
being ‘more than merely preparatory’.
Post CAA approach (KEY CASES)
Case Facts Outcome on appeal/ HELD
Gullefer [1990] 3 D tried to stop a greyhound race, in acts had not gone beyond mere
ALL ER 882 which the dog he had bet on was preparation, he still had to go to
losing, by jumping onto the track. the bookmakers and demand his
He hoped the race would be
money. Court said he had to
declared a ‘no race’ and he would
be able to reclaim his bet. D was ‘embark upon the crime proper.’
convicted of attempting to steal the (key 1 to consider in problem
money. questions)
(Too narrow? Had he not, in
reality, already embarked on the
crime? Close to the last act test?)
Appeal allowed. D’s acts did not go
beyond mere preparation: he
would still have had to go to the
bookmakers, demand his money,
etc.
Campbell [1991] D was arrested a yard away from Appeal allowed. D’s acts did not go
Crim LR 268 the door of a Post Office that he beyond mere preparation: he had
intended to rob. He was carrying not yet entered the Post Office or
an imitation firearm, a threatening made any demands of the cashier.
note, and he confessed to the
planned robbery. D was convicted
of attempted robbery.
Geddes [1996] D was found in the boys’ toilet of a Appeal allowed. D’s acts did not go
Liability MUST attach to a future principal offence - no liability for ‘attempts’ alone
Inchoate offences
- ‘Unfinished offences’
- Will generally not require D to have caused significant harm to a person or
property
- Can only operate in combination with a principal offence
- Irrelevant if principal offence ever comes about, D’s liability arises as soon
elements of inchoate offence is satisfied
- Challenge of setting the point at which D’s conduct justifies criminal
intervention
Attempt: D is criminalised for trying to commit a principal offence;
Principal offence - this refers to the offence (eg murder, theft, etc) that D is
attempting/conspiring/assisting or encouraging. This is also commonly referred to as
the ‘substantive offence’, the ‘full offence’, or the ‘future offence’;
Principal offender - where D is assisting or encouraging another to commit a
principal offence, the party assisted or encouraged is referred to as the principal
offender (P).
Criminal attempts
Offence of attempt criminalises D for doing more than merely preparatory acts
(beyond conspiracies) towards the commission of a principal offence she is trying to
commit.
- Commission by omission possible where D is under a legal duty to act
S.1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (CAA)
a person is guilty of an attempt “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...”
MENS REA: with intent to commit an offence
ACTUS REUS: person does an act which is more than merely preparatory
Evolution of the law/ TESTS
Pre CAA 1981 - i) Last act test & ii) Series of acts test.
Last act test:
Only allowed for attempted liability where D completed all acts that she believed
were necessary to commit the principal offence
Risk of not providing adequate protection for society.
, Series of acts test:
Resulted in liability for attempts where D’s act forms ‘part of a series of act which
would constitute [the] commission [of a principal offence] if it were not interrupted
However, D’s actions at early stages may not yet be sufficiently proximate to the
completion of the principal offence to be deserving of liability
Jones (1990)
- D got into the back seat of a car with V, and pointed a sawn-off shotgun at
him. Following a struggle, V escaped unharmed. D was charged with
attempted murder.
- HELD: conviction upheld on appeal. Even though D was at least three steps
away from completing the principal offence (he still had to remove the safety
catch, put his finger on the trigger, and pull it), his acts were still capable of
being ‘more than merely preparatory’.
Post CAA approach (KEY CASES)
Case Facts Outcome on appeal/ HELD
Gullefer [1990] 3 D tried to stop a greyhound race, in acts had not gone beyond mere
ALL ER 882 which the dog he had bet on was preparation, he still had to go to
losing, by jumping onto the track. the bookmakers and demand his
He hoped the race would be
money. Court said he had to
declared a ‘no race’ and he would
be able to reclaim his bet. D was ‘embark upon the crime proper.’
convicted of attempting to steal the (key 1 to consider in problem
money. questions)
(Too narrow? Had he not, in
reality, already embarked on the
crime? Close to the last act test?)
Appeal allowed. D’s acts did not go
beyond mere preparation: he
would still have had to go to the
bookmakers, demand his money,
etc.
Campbell [1991] D was arrested a yard away from Appeal allowed. D’s acts did not go
Crim LR 268 the door of a Post Office that he beyond mere preparation: he had
intended to rob. He was carrying not yet entered the Post Office or
an imitation firearm, a threatening made any demands of the cashier.
note, and he confessed to the
planned robbery. D was convicted
of attempted robbery.
Geddes [1996] D was found in the boys’ toilet of a Appeal allowed. D’s acts did not go
