Criminal attempts act 1981 - s.1(1) “If, with intent to commit an offence, 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: doing an act which is more than merely preparatory.
MR: intention to commit an offence.
The attempt must be indictable or triable either way, not preliminary.
Jones 1990 - D was convicted of attempted murder - the prepartory acts were
loading the gun, putting on his disguise and going to the school. But once he
got into the car, the acts which were more than merely preparatory were
when he took out the loaded gun and pointed it at V.
Timeline:
Decision to commit the offence; no liability. Planning and preparation; no
liability. Acts that are more than merely preparatory; attempt (the point
where planning turns to reality, the Gullefer test, has D embarked upon the
crime proper?).
AR cases (embarking on the crime proper):
Campbell - D planned to rob a post office, he arrived with a helmet, a fake gun
and a threatening note in his pocket, but was arrested before he entered, he
had not embarked upon the crime proper.
Tosti - D attempted to burgle a barn, he was disturbed when examining the
padlock on the barn, they had brought tools and a getaway vehicle, he was
guilty as he embarked upon the crime proper.
Geddes - D was found in the school toilets with a rucksack and ran off when
spotted by a teacher who alerted the police, arrested and convicted of
attempted false imprisonment, wasn’t guilty as he had prepared but never
made contact with the student.
, MR (intent to commit the offence):
Whybrow - for attempted murder, D must intend to kill (cannot intend GBH).
AG Ref No.1 and 2 1979 - conditional intent sufficient.
Millard and Vernon - recklessness alone is not sufficient (e.g. cannot attempt
to recklessly damage property).
AG Ref No.3 of 1992 - recklessness may be relevant as to the circumstances of
the AR (e.g. aggravated arson, intent to damage property and recklessness as
to whether life was endangered).
Attempting the impossible:
Legal impossibility: D’s attempt is impossible because contrary to their belief,
what they are attempting is not actually a criminal offence - not guilty. Taffee
- thought it was illegal to import currency, he was smuggling cannabis, and
believed it to be currency, the MR was for a non-existent crime so he wasn’t
guilty.
Factual impossibility: if what D attempts is a crime known to the law, but the
circumstances make it impossible to commit, D can still be guilty. Shivpuri -
believed he was dealing with a prohibited drug, turned out to be powered
vegetable matter, he was guilty as the MR was for an actual offence known to
law. Any attempt to commit an offence carries a liability if D: 1. Intended to
carry out the substantive offence. 2. Did an act that was more than merely
preparatory. 3. Even though completion was impossible.
Practice answer:
1st - stealing surfboard 2nd - ABH, throwing stone, is attempted ABH 3rd -
factual impossibility, attempted theft
Attempted offences are outlined in the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s.1(1)
states, “if, with intent to commit an offence, a person does an act which is
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: doing an act which is more than merely preparatory.
MR: intention to commit an offence.
The attempt must be indictable or triable either way, not preliminary.
Jones 1990 - D was convicted of attempted murder - the prepartory acts were
loading the gun, putting on his disguise and going to the school. But once he
got into the car, the acts which were more than merely preparatory were
when he took out the loaded gun and pointed it at V.
Timeline:
Decision to commit the offence; no liability. Planning and preparation; no
liability. Acts that are more than merely preparatory; attempt (the point
where planning turns to reality, the Gullefer test, has D embarked upon the
crime proper?).
AR cases (embarking on the crime proper):
Campbell - D planned to rob a post office, he arrived with a helmet, a fake gun
and a threatening note in his pocket, but was arrested before he entered, he
had not embarked upon the crime proper.
Tosti - D attempted to burgle a barn, he was disturbed when examining the
padlock on the barn, they had brought tools and a getaway vehicle, he was
guilty as he embarked upon the crime proper.
Geddes - D was found in the school toilets with a rucksack and ran off when
spotted by a teacher who alerted the police, arrested and convicted of
attempted false imprisonment, wasn’t guilty as he had prepared but never
made contact with the student.
, MR (intent to commit the offence):
Whybrow - for attempted murder, D must intend to kill (cannot intend GBH).
AG Ref No.1 and 2 1979 - conditional intent sufficient.
Millard and Vernon - recklessness alone is not sufficient (e.g. cannot attempt
to recklessly damage property).
AG Ref No.3 of 1992 - recklessness may be relevant as to the circumstances of
the AR (e.g. aggravated arson, intent to damage property and recklessness as
to whether life was endangered).
Attempting the impossible:
Legal impossibility: D’s attempt is impossible because contrary to their belief,
what they are attempting is not actually a criminal offence - not guilty. Taffee
- thought it was illegal to import currency, he was smuggling cannabis, and
believed it to be currency, the MR was for a non-existent crime so he wasn’t
guilty.
Factual impossibility: if what D attempts is a crime known to the law, but the
circumstances make it impossible to commit, D can still be guilty. Shivpuri -
believed he was dealing with a prohibited drug, turned out to be powered
vegetable matter, he was guilty as the MR was for an actual offence known to
law. Any attempt to commit an offence carries a liability if D: 1. Intended to
carry out the substantive offence. 2. Did an act that was more than merely
preparatory. 3. Even though completion was impossible.
Practice answer:
1st - stealing surfboard 2nd - ABH, throwing stone, is attempted ABH 3rd -
factual impossibility, attempted theft
Attempted offences are outlined in the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s.1(1)
states, “if, with intent to commit an offence, a person does an act which is
