|
|
^Attempts - impossibility - the
Criminal Attempts Act 1981]
D bought a video recorder believing it
to be stolen when it was not.
Held:
D mistakenly believed - subjectively - it was possible to commit the full
offence. It was objectively impossible to commit it. It would be an
'asinine' result if convicted. Parliament cannot have intended such a
result. s 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, which
overruled the common law of attempt, creates the offence of attempting a
crime, which is objectively impossible.
Not guilty |
|
Attorney General's Reference No 1 of 1992
(1992) |
^[Attempts - more than preparatory -
embarking on the full crime]
D attempted to have sexual intercourse
with a girl without her consent, whilst in an intoxicated state. He pulled
her behind a hedge and forced her to the ground. He lay on top of her,
lowered his trousers and interfered with her private parts. He was
unable to attempt penetration and have sexual intercourse with her. Did D
have to attempt penetration of the woman's vagina with his penis in order
to prove attempted rape?
Held:
D's actions were more than merely preparatory. He did not have to attempt
or achieve penetration for attempted rape. (D had not embarked on the
crime itself, and such a test is not relevant this represented the
previous common law tests. Concerning the actus reus of attempts)
Not guilty, but would be
now |
|
Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 1992
(1992) |
^[Attempts - Recklessness in attempts]
D was acquitted of attempted arson with
intent to endanger lives or with recklessness as to whether lives are
endangered.
Held:
It was only necessary to prove an intent to cause damage by fire and then
recklessness as to whether lives are endangered thereby.
Not guilty,
but would be now |
|
Boyle and Boyle (1987) CA |
^[Attempts - must be more than merely
preparatory]
D damaged the door of a house with a
view to entering the premises as a trespasser and with intent to steal
therein (attempted burglary).
Held:
D intended to enter the house and steal and so commit the offence of
burglary. In breaking down the door D did more than a merely preparatory
act.
The court was entitled to look back at
previous cases to discover the tests that were applied before.
Guilty |
|
|
^[Attempts - more than preparatory -
embarking on the full crime]
D planned to rob a post office. He
drove to the post office on a motorcycle, walked towards the post office
wearing a motorcycle helmet. D carried an imitation gun and had a
threatening note in his pocket, which he planned to hand over to the
cashier. D was arrested before he entered the post office.
Held:
D had not 'embarked on the crime proper', he had not entered the post
office, he had not attempted to remove the imitation firearm, he was not
wearing a disguise, and his acts were "merely preparatory".
The test to be applied is the "Gullefer
test" this test represents the true meaning of the words in s1
of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. Previous common law tests were
irrelevant.
Not guilty of attempted
robbery |
|
|
^[Attempts - Physical impossibility]
D agreed to produce cocaine. This
involved separating it from other substances in a powder that he believed
contained cocaine. The powder contained no cocaine and so D could not
have produced any.
Held:
D could be liable if the indictment was loosely worded. If a specific item
of property was on the indictment there could be no conviction if it was
physically or legally impossible. |
|
DPP v Stonehouse (1978) HL |
^[Attempts - actus reus, proximity test
under common law]
D, a former government minister in
England, insured his life for his wife's benefit. He then faked his death
by drowning overseas. D was convicted of attempting to obtain insurance
money by deception.
Held:
D's acts were proximate enough to the complete offence of obtaining
property by deception and therefore capable of amounting to an attempt.
D must have
"Crossed the Rubicon
and burnt his boats".
Guilty |
|
Eagleton, R v (1855) |
[Attempts - actus reus, proximity test
under common law]
D attempted to obtain money from the
guardians of a parish by falsely pretending to the relieving officer that
he had delivered loaves of bread of the proper weight to the outdoor poor,
when in fact the loaves were deficient in weight.
Held:
Parke B:
"Acts
remotely leading towards the commission of the offence are not to be
considered as attempts to commit it; but acts immediately connected with
it are ...".
Not guilty |
|
|
^[Attempts - more than preparatory -
embarking on the full crime]
D climbed onto a greyhound racetrack in
an attempt to stop a race. The dog on which he had placed a £18 bet was
losing and he had hoped to recover his stake. The stewards decided not to
stop the race.
Held:
D, at the stage he jumped on to the track, could not be said to be in the
process of committing theft and had not committed acts which were more
than merely preparatory to the offence of theft.
Lane LCJ:
the actus reus of attempt is satisfied
...
"when the merely
preparatory acts come to an end and the defendant embarks upon the crime
proper. When that is will depend of course upon the facts in any
particular case".
Not Guilty
This test is often
referred to as the "Gullefer Test" |
|
|
[Attempts - Impossibility in law -]
D, and others, attempted to handle
stolen corned beef by receiving them from a van at a motorway service
area. The police had earlier stopped the van, found the stolen goods and
two PC's waited in the back of the van, others were following the van.
Held:
The act of D must form part of a series of acts, which would constitute
the actual commission of the offence if it were not interrupted. If the
series of acts could never constitute a criminal offence then D cannot be
guilty of attempt.
Lord Reid:
"A man may set out to
commit a crime with inadequate tools. He finds that he cannot break in
because the door is too strong for him. Or he uses poison which is not
strong enough. He is certainly guilty of attempt; with better equipment or
greater skill he could have committed the full crime."
Not Guilty
[Now reversed by the 1981 Act] |
|
|
^[Attempts - more than preparatory -
embarking on the full crime]
D attempted to murder V. First he
bought a shotgun, sawed off the end of the barrel and test fired it. Later
he climbed into the back of V's car and told him to drive to a secluded
place. D removed the shotgun from his bag and pointed it at V. The safety
catch of the gun was on. V grabbed the gun and threw it out of the window
and made good his escaped.
Held:
D must come close to committing the full offence, but there may be some
acts left to perform before the substantive offence is committed. D had
still had to remove the gun's safety catch, put his finger on the trigger
and pull it, but he had performed sufficient acts that were more than
"merely preparatory".
Guilty of attempted murder |
|
Khan, R v (1990) |
^[Inchoate Offences - Attempts -
Recklessness in attempts -
nature of mens rea]
D attempted to have sexual intercourse
with a girl without her consent, but he failed.
Held:
Recklessness as to whether the girl consented was sufficient mens rea.
Russell LJ:
"The offences of rape
and attempted rape are identical in all respects except that in the former
sexual intercourse takes place and in the latter it does not. Therefore
the mens rea of both offences is identical, namely an intention to have
sexual intercourse plus a knowledge of or recklessness as to the woman's
absence of consent."
Guilty |
|
Millard & Vernon (1987) |
[Attempts - Recklessness in attempts]
D1 and D2 were football supporters who
repeatedly pushed against a wooden wall on a stand at a football ground in
an attempt to break it or being reckless as to whether the wall was
damaged.
Held:
Mere recklessness was not sufficient. In an attempt to commit a
substantive offence, if the substantive offence consists of an act leading
to the result - requiring mens rea - full intent is required. If the
substantive offence consists of mens rea relating to the result and some
other circumstance, recklessness will suffice as a mens rea relating to
the other circumstance.
"The result which
would have been achieved if the offence had been taken to fruition was
damage to the stand . . . the prosecution had to show . . . that it was
this state of affairs which each appellant had decided, so far as in him
lay, to bring about."
Not Guilty |
|
Mohan, R v (1976) CA |
^[Inchoate Offences – attempts – nature of mens rea]
D was driving his car and responded to
a police officer's signal to stop. D slowed down but then accelerated
towards the PC. The PC moved out of the way, D drove off. D was charged
with attempt to cause bodily harm by wanton driving at a police constable.
The jury were directed that the
prosecution had to prove that D realised that such wanton driving would be
likely to cause bodily harm.
Held:
Intent is an essential ingredient of an attempt and is only mens rea
of attempts.
Recklessness would often suffice as the
mens rea for the full offence, attempt was a separate and often
more serious offence with its own separate mens rea.
Not guilty |
|
O'Toole, R v (1987) |
^[Mens rea of attempts]
D committed attempted arson,
recklessly.
Held:
'Intention' required for an attempt. 'Recklessness' only required for
the full offence.
Not guilty |
|
|
^[Attempts - Physical impossibility]
D took V's wallet from a drawer. D
looked to see if it contained any money, intending to steal anything she
found but it was empty.
Held:
The substantive offence was impossible, so at that time the attempt could
not be possible either.
Not guilty |
|
Rowley, R v (1992) |
^[Attempts – to incite – more than
preparing the ground]
D left notes in public places offering
money and presents to boys. These notes, which were not indecent in
themselves, were designed to lure boys for immoral purposes. The question
was whether he was guilty of attempted incitement of a child under the age
of fourteen years to commit an act of gross indecency.
Taylor LJ:
"Here, the note went no further than to
seek to engineer a preliminary meeting. No proposition or incitement to
the offence had emanated from the defendant. At most he was preparing the
ground for an attempt."
Note incitement amended by Serious Crime Act
2007 |
|
|
[Attempts - impossibility - the
Criminal Attempts Act 1981]
D attempted to deal and harbour
drugs. He believed he might be dealing with a prohibited drug such as
cannabis or heroin whereas in fact the substance was harmless powdered
vegetable matter, snuff or cabbage.
Held:
The House of Lords overturned its previous decision in Anderton v
Ryan.
Any attempt to commit an offence
carries liability if D
-
Intended to carry out the substantive
offence and
-
Did an act that was more than merely
preparatory,
-
Even though completion was
impossible.
Guilty |
|
Tosti, R v [1997] CA |
[Inchoate Offences – attempts – must be
more than preparatory]
DD attempted to burgle a
barn. Around midnight, they were disturbed examining the padlock on the
barn door, but ran off when they realised they were being watched. Their
cars were parked in a lay-by nearby, and hidden in a hedge between the
cars and the barn was an oxy-acetylene cutting set.
Held:
The jury had been
entitled to find that their acts were more than merely preparatory.
Guilty |
|
Walker and Hayles (1990) |
[Attempts - 'With intent' includes
'oblique or indirect intent']
D1 and D2 engaged in a fight during
which V was injured when he was thrown over a third floor balcony.
Held:
The mental element for attempted murder, could be inferred from evidence
that D foresaw death as a virtually certain or highly probable consequence
of his actions. This was the principle in Nedrick.
Guilty |
|
|
^[Impossibility due to incapacity]
D tried to kill his mother by poisoning
her but did not use enough poison to successfully cause her death.
Held:
Bray I:
"… the completion or
attempted completion of a series of acts intended by a man to result in a
killing is an attempt to murder even though this completed act would not,
unless followed by other acts, result in killing."
Guilty |
|
|
^[Inchoate Offences –
attempts – nature of mens rea of attempted murder]
D built an electric device to give an
electric shock to his wife when she took a bath.
Held:
Only intent to kill suffices for attempted murder, because
"the intent becomes
the principal ingredient of the crime".
Intent to cause grievous bodily harm
was sufficient mens rea for the full offence of murder.
Not guilty |
|
|
^[Attempts - must be more than merely
preparatory]
D gave the name and address of a
neighbour because he was not creditworthy. He wanted to buy a van on hire
purchase. He accidentally signed the form with his own name. D was charged
with attempting to obtain services by deception.
Held:
D, in giving false particulars was merely a preparatory act in order to
obtain hire purchase. If the hire purchase company responded favourably it
still remained for D to seek a hire purchase agreement with them. D's acts
could not be described as immediately rather than remotely connected with
the specific offence being attempted.
Not guilty |
