Attempts

Conspiracy Impossibility

- Guilty if factually impossible - Probably guilty is legally impossible - Not guilty if imaginary crime

Conspiracy Mens Rea

- intention to agree - intention to carry out agreement - R v L reasoning may be extended to conspiracy?

Abandonment

- once the sufficiently proximate act has been committed, abandonment will not exculpate - However, it may be a relevant mitigating factor in sentencing where the abandonment was voluntary/genuine

However, in RvL, s 72 (1) requires...

-Always require intention to achieve any required consequences -But a lesser mens rea standard will suffice for the secondary mens rea element (here, V's lack of consent). -Unclear if will extend to other offences

Attempts are criminalised by s 311

-General provision: covers all offences - But, some provisions criminalise the attempt in their own right

Basic Attempts Structure

1. Actus Reus - Sufficiently proximate act? 2. Mens Rea - Intent to commit offence? -RvL? 3.Impossibility -Factual versus legal 4. Abandonment

AMIAC

Actus Reus Mens Rea Impossibility? Abandonment? Conspiracy?

Conspiracy Actus Reus

An agreement between two parties

Conspiracy Abandonment

Depends on the agreement

Arguing to extend RvL:

If you have (1) a relevant offence, and (2) relevant facts, then; Policy argument: sufficiently serious offence as in RvL? If so, illogical not to extened so as to protect public safety. -Apply the Duff test: "would the agent necessarily commit the offence if they succeeded in what they were trying to do?" - If yes, then D has the mental state requisite for liability of the full offence (if it was completed); SO, for public safety, should be extended/held liable for the attempt.

5. Committing the offence is physically impossible (liable):

Something about the facts which means that D could never physically achieve the intended offence.

6: Even if D completed acts, the acts are not illegal (not liable)

Something about the legal status of an element of an offence (eg nature of the offence, age of victim) which means D couldn't commit the offence, even if she achieved all she set out to do.

Case law tests for "sufficiently proximate act"

Wilcox: "a step in the actual crime itself" Wylie: "real and practical steps" Drewery: "commenced a series of steps essential to the succesful completion of the crime" Harpur: Supports Wylie and doubts Wilcox

Arguing Actus Reus of Attempts

Wylie/Harpur is the better test. First port of call. - But, still need to argue both ways; can it be said that the defendant's actions were not real and practical steps towards the actus reus? - Wilcox is a last ditch argument for the defendant, but otherwise should probably not be used (and drewery neither) -Do not assert conclusion...legal reasoning..

Need to be able to construct specific/general arguments

e.g I did not mean to take that bag of drugs (factually impossible), I did not mean to take that bag (no legal offence)

Conspiracy

s 310

Impossiblity

s 72 (1) : attempting an offence is illegal, whether or not it was possible. R v Donnelly: categories of impossibillity:

The Mens Rea of Attempts

s 72 (1) requires that D intend to attempt the offence - Same applies if SL offence -Does D intend to commit the actus reus; and D have the intent required in the offence? - However, if D has multiple Mens Rea components and some of those components are less than intention, s 72 (1) means that D must have had the highest mens rea standard for each component (intention or knowledge)

Actus Reus of attempts

s 72 (2) requires an act that is more than "mere preparation" s 72 (3) requires an act "immediately or proximately connected with the intended offence"

Attempts are defined by

s 72 crimes act