what is the actus reus of attempt
- Some conduct on the part of the accused which is sufficiently proximate to the intended offence to incur liability.
- The conduct must be beyond mere preparation.
when will the offence of the accused not succeed ?
An offence of attempt will not succeed unless it is clearly demonstrated that the defendant took clear steps beyond mere preparation towards its actual commission
what are the facts of the case R v Eagleton (1855)
Accused was convicted of attempting to claim money under false pretences.
what are the basis principles of the offence?
(i) Intention is not a sufficient basis upon which to establish the offence
(ii) There must be some act or acts accompanying the intention.
(iii) The act or acts must be in some way immediately connected to the substantive offence.
what are the facts of the case People (AG) v Thornton (1952)
- The defendant was charged with several counts of unlawful carnal knowledge of the complainant – when she was over and under the age of 15 – She was a domestic servant at his house.
- He was also charged with attempt to obtain a poison (ergot), knowing that it was intended to cause a miscarriage of the complainant.
- Evidence of a conversation between the accused and a doctor (who was treating the complainant) was adduced before the court - - it was stated that the accused stated to the doctor – “wasn’t there some drug named ergot
In this case the accused contacted the doctor on 3 occasions:
1. he asked if anything could be done and he was told no
2. he asked about the ergot
3. following being given iron tablets for the woman’s health – he informed the doctor that they were not working. To which the doctor replied that the tablets were only a tonic
what are the facts of the case AG v O’Sullivan [1964]
- Mary O’Sullivan was a midwife – she had a basic salary of £208 per year.
- She also received an additional £4 4s for every case above the number of 25 that she attended
- She was charged in the DC on 3 summons with – attempting to obtain money by false pretences with intent to defraud
describe the predatory acts
- Proximity approach: demands an act relatively close to the completion of the relevant substantive offence – (AG) v O’sullivan SC
- First act approach: any act moving towards completing the relevant substantive offence - (AG) v O’sullivan HC
- Last act approach: requires the accused to take every act necessary to bring about the substantive offence
- Unequivocal act approach: requires the act to unconditionally demonstrate its intrinsic criminal qualities - (AG) v Thornton [1952]
what approach is adopted in Ireland and why ?
It is safe to assume that the proximity approach has been adopted in Ireland’.
This was also recognised in the Law Reform Commision:
◦The first and last act – tend to criminalise too much and too little (respectively)
◦The proximity act test allows a court to steer clear of these extremes
what is the mens rea for attempt ?
- The mens rea of attempt is intention
Even if the substantive offence incorporates a less culpable state than that of intention (e.g. recklessness) – intent must be proven for the attempt of that offence - Mens rea for attempt – is an attempt to produce the actus reus
what are the facts of the case R v Pearman (1985)
- The appellant was stopped by a police officer who spoke to him. He then drove forward, knocking the police officer off his car and causing another officer to jump out of the way.
- He was convicted of two counts of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm
- He appealed – the judge had misdirected the jury – ‘the necessary intent existed if the appellant did a voluntary act foreseeing that really serious bodily harm would probably result from the act’
- His defence – he had no intention of harming the police officer and did not foresee his action would cause serious injury to anybody
can a person be found not guilty of attempt if they abandon the crime ?
According to Campbell et al (2010) abandonment does not appear to be accepted as a defence to attempt offences – once the accused has committed an act, satisfied the proximity test, with intent to commit the substantive offence – changes his mind at the last minute – he may still be guilty under Irish law
can the accused be found guilty if he attempts to do something that is impossible ?
If the accused attempts to do something that it either legally or physically impossible, he cannot be convicted of attempt.
what are the facts of the case of R v Taafe [1984]
The accused believed he was smuggling currency into the country – however there was no such offence – hence there could be no conviction
what are the facts of the case R v Shivuri [1967]
- The accused was arrested at customs with a package containing white powder
– he confessed to being a dealer of illicit drugs. - On analysis the powder was vegetable powder and other legal material.
- He was convicted of the offence of attempting to be knowingly concerned in dealing with and harbouring prohibited drugs
- He appealed on the basis that
– he did not have in his possession illicit drugs and could therefore not be charged with dealing illicit drugs.
what was held in the case of R v Shivuri [1967]
Question 1: did he intend to commit the offence – answer: yes
Question 2: did he do more than merely preparatory acts in relation to the commission of the offence – answer: yes
