intro
s.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 states D can be liable (as for the full offence) by
committing any act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the
offence.
AR
Doing an act that is more than merely preparatory (MTMP) to the offence
* D must have gone beyond purely preparatory acts and “embarked on the
crime proper” Gullefer
* Has D done an act which shows that they have actually tried to commit the
offence in question or have they only got ready or put themselves in a
position or equipped themselves to do so? Geddes
cases of acts which were merely preparatory
Gullefer
* Campbell
* Geddes
Examples of acts which were more than
merely preparatory
- Boyle & Boyle
- A-G’s Ref (No.1 of 1992)
- Tosti
Mens Rea
D must intend to commit the full offence
* For attempted murder, D must intend to kill (an intent to cause GBH is
insufficient) Whybrow
* Conditional intent is enough – A-G’s Ref 1979
* Recklessness is not enough, even if sufficient for the main offence – Millard
& Vernon
attempting the imposible
s.1(2) Criminal Attempts Act 1981
* A person can be guilty of an attempted crime even though on the facts the
commission of the offence is impossible
Attempting impossible - legally impossible
the offence that D believes he is committing does not actually exist, then
he cannot be guilty of an attempt.
In Taaffe (1984) D imported foreign currency into
the UK, believing it to be a crime. In fact, it was not
against the law, so although in his own mind Taaffe
was attempting to commit an offence, he could not
be liable.
Attempting the impossible - factually impossible
Shivpuri (1986)
D received a suitcase which he thought contained
prohibited drugs but was actually just harmless
vegetable matter.
Ratio: D can attempt an offence that is legally impossible. He
intended to deal with drugs and had the actus reus of attempting to
do so, even though the facts meant he could complete all he had set
out to do and still not have the actus reus of the full offence.
