Attempts

What did the LC say?

A preparatory conduct which is sufficiently close to the final act.

Pearman (1984)

'Intent' carries the same meaning as in the common law. Includes both direct and indirect intent.

Section 1(2) and (3) of CAA 1981

(2)...may be guilty of attempting...even facts are such that the commission...is impossible (3) If the facts had been as he believed them to be...intention would be so regarded as having intention to commit the offence.

What is the AR?

1. More than merely preparatory (Contentious)

Anderton v Ryan (1985) Charged with an attempt to handle stolen goods.

Acquitted because D is objectively innocent.

Whybrow (1987)

Attempted murder requires intent to kill. Not intent to cause GBH.

Khan (1990)

Attempted rape is when V did not consent and D knew or could not care less about her consent. (Recklessness) One does not recklessly commit rape. He commits the offence because of the circumstances in which he manifests that intent. (NB. This is pre-SOA 2003) Remains to be seen whether MR for S1 SOA 2003 rape would be 'an intention to have sexual intercourse with a lack of reasonable belief in consent.

What is Shivpuri praised and criticised for?

Clarified the law but difficult for jury to work out what was in fact going on inside D's mind. Are suspected beliefs sufficient? Such as, D thought he was raping V because he doubted whether consented, which in fact she did.

What is the concern here?

Conflict between social protection and individual liberty.

Taaffee

D thought importing foreign currency was a crime.

What would a good answer be?

Discuss all three possible interpretations. All may produce the same result.

S4(3) CAA 1981

Given ordinary meaning. Question for jury.

Stonehouse (1978) Gov minister put life insurance on himself and faked his death overseas. No payout so not obtaining of money.

Guilty. Lord Ziplock 'Must have crossed the Rubicon and burnt his boats'

Jones (1990) Pointed a loaded gun.

Has done the last act before committing the offence.

Taylor 1859

It was held that an attempt was committed where the defendant approached a stack of corn with the intention of setting fire to it and lighted a match for that purpose but abandoned his plan on finding that he was being watched.

Geddes (1996) Facts: Hid in a school's cubicle with some rope, a knife, toilet paper and masking tape.

Lord Bingham: 1. Had he moved from the realm of intention, preparation and planning into the area of execution or implementation? 2. He had not had any contact or communication with any pupil. 3. Feel bound to conclude that the evidence was insufficient in law to support a find of more than merely preparatory. CA avoided setting down any definite rule for the jury to apply. But should be given it plain meaning.

Which one do you do first? AR or MR?

MR. Only when you know what the offender intends to do can you judge whether his actions were more than merely preparatory.

Can you attempt by omission? Such as deliberate not saving your drowning child but child subsequently survived?

NO

Is there a hard and fast or rule of thumb rule?

No

Is 'last act test' still relevant?

No (Gullefer). Not necessary to show that D has done the last act. So may still be guilty even with several acts left.

Campbell (1991) Facts: Arrested before he had entered the post-offices

No attempted robbery. Whether he had actually tried to commit the offence or he had only got ready or put himself in a position or equipped himself to do so. 1. A number of acts remained undone. 2. Did not gain the place where he could be in a position to carry out the offence. Had not 'embarked on the crime proper' (Gullefer test) (It was said that this test shows the true meaning of the provision and previous tests were irrelevant)

Is buying a knife to kill someone more than merely preparatory?

No. Only merely preparatory.

Main legislation?

Section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981

Attempts are available in what kind of offences?

Only indictable. Not summary offences like assault of battery.

Eagleton (1855)

Planning to deliver less bread.He dropped off the bread but hadn't told the Parish that they received the right amount. ('Last act test')

Shivpuri (1987) He confessed to dealing illegal drugs but suitcases only contained snuff and harmless vegetable matter.

Rejected Anderson. In LC: In theory, if A steals his own umbrella, believing that it was someone else's, would still be guilty but unrealistic that a complaint would be made or that a prosecution would ensue. Lord Birdge: Concept of 'objective innocence' is incapable of sensible application in relation to the law of criminal attempts because considered objectively and independent of the state of mind of D.

Gullefer (1990) Wanted to stop the race by climbing onto the race. Final act would be when he get the money.

Rejected Lord Ziplock's test. Not guilty. He was stopping the race in order to prepare to get the money back.

Can D be charged with attempt even though he had committed full offence?

S6(4) YES!!

Did AR Ref extend Khan?

Still not sure. 1. Can be recklessness as to circumstances but not consequences test 2. Can be recklessness to circumstances OR consequences test 3. 'Missing element' test. (D must intend to supply the missing element). AG Ref claimed to be following Khan which would support the circumstances view only.

AG's Reference (No 3 of 1992) Threw petrol bomb towards a car full of people but missed it and hit a wall.

Sufficient to prove that D was reckless as to whether life would thereby be endangered. Intention for 'missing element'. The missing element was hitting the car and D did intend to do it. (But is 'whether life would thereby be endangered a circumstances or consequences?)

Roberts (1855) Attempted to print counterfeit coins. Apprehended before he obtained the necessary metal and press.

Sufficient. Used 'Substantial step' test. 'Difficult and perhaps impossible to lay down a clear and definite rule'

What do Khan and AG's ref suggest?

That recklessness as to circumstantial aspects of AR of full offence can sometimes be sufficient for an attempt.

Davey v Lee (1968)

it was stated that acts taking a step towards commission of the crime (specific) that were immediately, not loosely connected were preparatory acts leading to an attempt. which cannot reasonably be regarded as having any other purpose than the commission of the specific crime."'