Criminal Attempts

Mind Map by TomBrittain, updated more than 1 year ago
Created by TomBrittain over 5 years ago


Mind Map on Criminal Attempts, created by TomBrittain on 01/26/2015.

Resource summary

Criminal Attempts
1 Introductory Facts
1.1 Rationale
1.1.1 Punish the Criminal Mind Deterrence Public Protection Criminal Mind = Criminal Liability
1.2 History
1.2.1 Attempts have long been criminalised in the Common Law R v White (1910): Mother-Son-Heartattack-Son Poison-Not Linked-Attempted Murder.
1.2.2 Judges have struggled with the AR of attempts. (Deciding how close D had to get to the full offence.)
1.2.3 Judges have developed a number of tests in Common Law (JP) E.g: The Proximity Test. Eagleton Robinson: Jeweller-Hid Stock-Tied Self Up-Called Police-D Found+Confessed-Quashed-Not Rang Insurance-Acts Not Immediately Concerned With Substantive Offence.
1.2.4 Couldn't be convicted of attempting the impossible. REFORM REQUIRED! Criminal Attempts Act (1981)
1.3 Definition of Attempts
1.3.1 S.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act (1981)
1.3.2 An act which is more than merely preparatory towards commission of the full offence.
1.4 Sentencing
1.4.1 S.4(1) CAA (1981)
1.4.2 An attempt will be punishable to the same extent as the substantive offence.
2 Actus Reus of Attempts
2.1 S.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act (1981)
2.2 An act which is more than merely preparatory towards commission of the full offence.
2.2.1 MTMP not explained further! S.4(3) CAA (1981): Matter for the Jury to decide As Juries (at trial) lead to inconsistent decisions, on Appeal, Judges have tried to explain MTMP further, and give guidance. More Than Merely Preparatory R v Jones: D-Sawn off Shotgun-Entered V's Car-Pointed Gun-D Got Gun-V=Attempted Murder Boyle and Boyle: D's-Door-Locks Broken-Attempted Burglary-CA: Full Offence=D's Entering Building, Any attempt to Gain Access=Attempt AG's Reference: Man-Girl-Shed-Dragged-Attempted Rape-Argued Against-Flaccid Penis-Dragging into Shed=MTMP Less Than Merely Preparatory R v Geddes: Man-Boys Toilet-School-Weapons For Kidnap. MTMP = Moving from Preparation and Planning to Implementation and Execution. R v Gullefer: Greyhound Race-Dog Loosing-Man-Track-Void Race-Not "Embarked on the Crime Proper"-Not Started Get Money Back. MTMP = When D has Embarked on the Crime Proper R v Campbell: Man-Post Office-Outside-Note+Fake Gun-Rob-Changed Mind-Quashed-NO MTMP
3 Criminal Attempts Act (1981)
4 Mens Rea of Attempts
4.1 Common Law - Pre-1981
4.1.1 R v Mohan: Ruled "Intent is an essential ingredient for attempts." "Recklessness is never sufficient for MR."
4.2 Now S.1(1) CAA (1981)
4.2.1 Mens Rea is usually the same as the full substantive offence. However: Recklessness as a consequence is never sufficient as MR for attempts Millard v Vernon: D-Football Stand-Attempted Criminal Damage-CA-Recklessness (as a consequence) is not sufficient MR for attempted crimes, specific intention is required. Recklessness may be sufficient for 1 part of the offence. AG's Reference Recklessness as to circumstances may be sufficient for attempted rape. R v Khan and Khan D can be liable if they intended to have sexual intercourse but were "reckless as to consent." MR for Attempted Murder R v Whybrow: Showed "Intention to Kill" rather than "Intention to Kill or Cause GBH" as it is for Murder. MR is more onerous for Attempt than Full Offence.
4.2.2 Follows CL position
5 Attempting the Impossible
5.1 Legal Impossibility
5.1.1 D intends to commit an offence, but is apprehended. However, the offence in question is not actually an offence. It is Legal!
5.1.2 CAA (1981) does not deal with Legal Impossibilities. R v Taaffe: HoL held D could not be guilty of attempting a crime which was legally impossible AO2: Defence was the Smugglers Defence which left a gaping lacuna in the Law of Attempts.
5.2 Factual Impossibility.
5.2.1 D intends to commit an offence, but it is found that it is factually impossible to complete the full offence.
5.2.2 Pre-1981 Haughton v Smith: You cannot be convicted of attempting a factually impossible offence.
5.2.3 S.1(2) CAA (1981) It is possible convict a defendant who has attempted a factually impossible offence. Anderton v Ryan: HoL failed to interpret the new statute properly as D was quashed of the offence. R v Shivpuri: HoL used Practice Statement (1966) for the 1st time in a criminal trial to overrule the earlier decision in Anderton v Ryan to convict of a factually impossible offence.
Show full summary Hide full summary


Criminal Law
A-Level Law: Theft
Criminal Law Lecture 1 Spring Term
Maryam Z
The Criminal Courts
Sources of Law
Jessica Phillips
GCSE Biology B2 (OCR)
Usman Rauf
Computing Hardware - CPU and Memory
Unit 1 flashcards
Cell Structure