Attempts

Question 1

When does an inchoate offence occur?

Answer 1

When steps have been to committ an offence
* D’s conduct must have reached a certain threshold that warrants criminal liability - not enough to merely think about committing offence

Question 2

What is the AR for an inchoate offence?

Answer 2

An act which is more than merely preparatory
* question of facts to be decided by jury provided judge is satisfied actions are capable of being more than merely pereparatory

Question 3

What is an example of an attempt being more than merely preparatory?

Answer 3

• getting into a car with a loaded gun and pointing it at victim (attempted murder)

BUT
* being in school toilets with a knife and rope but no schoolchildren is not an attempt
* being outside post office with threatening note and fake gun is not an attempt

Question 4

What is the MR for an inchoate offence?

Answer 4

Accused must intend to bring about consequences required for full offence
* if substantive offence has MR of either intention and recklessness as to AR, to convict of an attempt proof of intention is required.
* conditional intent counts as intention so D will still have sufficient MR for an attempt
- e.g., D picks a bag and looks through it and decides that there is nothing worth taking - D can be convicted of attempted theft as they have intention to steal

Question 5

Attempts in aggravated criminal damage?

Answer 5

For aggravated criminal damage:
* the AR is damage to property
- more than merely preparatory act
* MR is intention or recklessness as to damaging property
- MR for missing AR element must be intention
- D must intend to bring about consequences required for full offence - recklessness is not enough for this part of MR
* intention or recklessness as to endangering life by the damage
- MR does not relate to AR (about damage to property not life) - so usual MR is enough
- recklessness is sufficient for this part of MR

same applies to aggravated arson

For aggravated cases: essentially, it’s only necessary to prove an intent to achieve what was missing from full offence (damage to property) together with other MR required for offence

Question 6

What happens where D sets out to commit a crime which is in fact impossible to commit?

Answer 6

Non-existent crime:
* where accused believes that what they are doing is an offence whereas its lawful - intention to a non-crime
* cannot turn a lawful act into an unlawful one so prosecution cannot convict accused relying on their intent to do something which is not in itself a crime = will not succeed

Inadequacy:
* where crime itself is feasible but D adopts or seeks to adopt a method that cannot work (e.g., poisoning someone with substance that unknown to them is harmless)
* this logic cannot succeed in any situation so D who sets out to kill cannot simply be let off because they chose a method that’s doomed to fail

impossible in fact
* no longer a defence was reversed by statute - intention to a real crime
* e.g., if D stabs V but V is already dead then D will be liable for attempted murder
* e.g., D arrested with a suitcase in which contained illegal drugs but turned out not to - D was convicted of attempt to knowingly be concerned in dealing with drugs

General rule is impossibility is not a defence to an attempted offence but impossibility through non-existent crimes can be but impossibility through inadequacy and in fact cannot