Attempts

Question 1

R v Gullefer

Answer 1

AR - MP

Proximity test: requires the D’s actions to go beyond mere preparation and be closely connected to the commission of the offence

Question 2

R v Campbell

Answer 2

AR - MP

D did not end up entering the post office to threaten staff so no robbery attempt

Question 3

R v Nash

Answer 3

AR - MP

Although the first 2 letters D sent requested an act of gross indecency, the 3rd one did not - couldn’t be an attempt

Question 4

MS, Application by the Prosecution for Leave of Appeal

Answer 4

AR - MP

‘Geographical proximity’ isn’t a sole deciding factor and each case must be decided based on its own facts - D still could’ve ’embarked upon’ crime at a distance

Question 5

R v Boyle and Boyle

Answer 5

AR - MTMP

All they had to do was enter the building to complete committing the full crime

Question 6

R v Jones

Answer 6

AR - MTMP

All he had to do was pull the trigger to commit the full crime

Question 7

A-G Ref (No1 of 1992)

Answer 7

AR - MTMP

All he had to do was penetrate V to commit the full crime

Question 8

R v Whybrow

Answer 8

Mens rea

The mens rea is intent to kill for attempted murder

Question 9

R v Millard

Answer 9

Mens rea

Recklessness will not suffice as intent

Question 10

A-G Ref (No3 of 1992)

Answer 10

Mens rea

Need intent to damage property but could be reckless as to endanger life

Question 11

R v Khan

Answer 11

Mens rea

A person may be guilty of an attempt even if the full offence requires a certain state of mind (eg consent in rape), provided they had rage necessary intent to commit the act and were reckless to the circumstances

Question 12

R v Pace and Rogers

Answer 12

Mens rea

D must have intent to commit all the elements of the offence, not just some of them. Suspicion is not sufficient.

Question 13

Anderson v Ryan

Answer 13

Attempting the impossible

D could not be convicted for something she believed but turned out to be wrong (overruled by Shivpuri)

Question 14

R v Shivpuri

Answer 14

Attempting the impossible

Overruled Anderson v Ryan, D was convicted of attempting the impossible

Question 15

R v Jones

Answer 15

Attempting the impossible

Even though the V was not a real 12yo girl, D was still convicted of attempting the impossible

Question 16

Attempts plan

Answer 16

Where someone attempts to commit a crime but at some point fails.

Defined under s1 of Criminal Attempts Act 1981: ‘if, with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a
person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, they are guilty of attempting to commit that offence’

It’s a question of fact as to if D has moved from the merely preparatory stage and gone sufficiently far enough towards committing the full offence, for the act to be considered an attempt.
It is specifically asked:
- Had the D actually tried to commit the offence? (More than merely preparatory)
- Or, had they simply got ready, got into position or equipped themselves to commit the offence? (Merely preparatory)

AR:
- An attempt must be a positive act (not omission) that is MTMP to the commission of the offence - R v Boyle and Boyle, R v Jones, A-G Ref (No1 of 1992)
- Therefore an offence that is merely preparatory is not an attempt - R v Gullefer, R v Campbell, R v Nash, MS Application by the Prosecution for Leave of Appeal
Apply….

MR:
- The prosecution must prove D’s intent to commit that particular full offence - R v Whybrow, A-G Ref (No3 of 1992)
- Recklessness will not suffice - R v Millard
-In certain crimes, an intent may suffice for the full crime, but also suffice for an attempt - R v Khan
Apply….

Attempting the impossible:
The 1981 Act has drawn a distinction between an offence which is factually impossible and legally impossible
S1(2) - factual impossibility
- if on the fact of the case, the commission of the crime is impossible, but D believed it to be possible, they can still be convicted of attempted crime - Anderson v Ryan, R v Shivpuri, R v Jones
S1(3) - legal impossibility
- if D believes they are committing an offence, but they are actually not committing an offence, they cannot be convicted of attempting the offence they think they’re committing - MS Application…
Apply….

Conclusion - if the act is more than merely preparatory, D could be convicted to attempted crime where they satisfy intent under attempting the impossible.