1. I NCHOATE O FFENCES : M ADE W ITH Y OU I N M IND

2. T HE O FFENCES ! 1. Attempts

3. ACTIVITY Make up your own attempted offence, explaining how the actus reus and mens rea are fulfilled.

4. A TTEMPTS The Criminal Attempts Act 1981 codifies the common law relating to Attempts and in s. 1(1) defines it as: “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, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence”. Attempts are unusual in criminal law as when they are considered by the courts and legal academics it is with regards to the mens rea first…….. Why?

5. A TTEMPTS …. I T ’ S A LL A BOUT T HE M ENS R EA From the definition in the act It’s clear to see that for attempt we need: 1. An intentional act (Mens Rea) 2. Which is more then preparatory! (Actus Reus)

6. W HAT IS AN INCHOATE OFFENCE ? Its means ‘Just begun’ or ‘undeveloped’, in criminal law it is used to describe activities which precede the commission of a full offence but are criminal offences in themselves. e.g. conspiracy to commit murder, theft etc. Name the Statute that contains the law relating to inchoate offences? S1 (1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981

7. Name the 3 things required to prove that an attempt to commit a crime has been made? 1-That the defendant did an act more than merely preparatory 2-To the commission of an indictable offence 3- An intent to commit that offence

8. W HAT IS THE A CTUS R EUS FOR ATTEMPTS ? A person does an act that is more than preparatory to commit the indictable offence Can an act be committed by an omission? Yes it can apply to omissions where in cases where there was a duty to act e.g. parental relationship

9. M ORE T HEN ‘M ERELY P REPARATORY ’ By being more then ‘merely preparatory’ D’s conduct must be close to committing the actual offence, it is best illustrated with case law. R v Campbell (1991)- D was arrested outside a Post Office, carrying a gun, a threatening note and in disguise. His original conviction of attempted robbery was quashed by the Court of Appeal. His acts were less then preparatory, he would only satisfy this once he entered the Post Office. R v Jones [1990]- D pointed a shotgun at V. He was convicted of attempted murder. Even though he would have had to remove the safety catch, put his finger on the trigger and then pull it before he could commit the offence. His actions were seen as more then preparatory.

10. W HAT DOES THE TERM ‘ MERELY PREPARATORY ’ MEAN ? This term distinguishes between those acts that cannot amount to an attempt because its too early, and those that are advanced enough to show that an attempt is ‘on’ So that means there has to be more than mere preparation for the main crime. Some acts are obviously mere preparation, but other acts are more difficult to categorise An example is a where a D buys himself a shot gun and converted it to a sawn off shot gun. Both the buying and the converting are ‘merely preparatory’ the drive to the bank- preparatory- but standing outside the bank, carrying the sawn off shot gun in a bag – closer but still preparatory. When he walks into the bank its gone beyond preparation and can be charged with attempted robbery.

11. Please give a case example to highlight the meaning more than ‘merely preparatory’ Jones/ Boyle and Boyle/ Gullefrer What type of offence do attempts apply to. Anything that can be tried on indictment

12. I NTENTION B Y A NY O THER N AME At this point it is important to show what is meant by intention, sadly it isn’t as straight forward as it sounds. Intention- 2 main definitions: 1. Direct Intent- simple to define but hard to prove, I directly intend an action (e.g. Before coming at you with a knife I shout “I’m going to kill you!!!!”). 2. Oblique Intent- More common but difficult to explain, A consequence is a ‘virtual certainty’ of my actions (e.g. I come at you with a knife and stab you in the head to shut you up, as a result you die). The leading case on Oblique intent is R v Woolin which is always worth a look.

13. W HAT IS THE M ENS R EA FOR ATTEMPTS ? Intent to commit that criminal offence- same intention as required for the full offence and if the prosecution cannot show that the D had this intention then they are not guilty of the attempt Also to be guilty of attempts the D must intend the consequence specified in the Actus reus Is recklessness enough for mens rea? In Millard and Vernon 1987 it was decided that recklessness was not enough- they had not intended to destroy or damage the fence So usually recklessness is not sufficient MR for an attempt. This is so even where recklessness would suffice for the completed defence. However there is an exception- recklessness to one part of the offence can be sufficient as illustrated in Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1992) (1994)

14. A TTEMPTING I NTENTION R v Mohan [1975]- D (a police officer) signalled a driver D to stop; D drove at C, who jumped out of the way. D was convicted of attempting to cause bodily harm by wanton driving. Allowing his appeal, the Court said the judge had been wrong to direct the jury in terms of recklessness as to harm. Any attempt requires mens rea in the form of a specific intent to commit the substantive offence. R v Shivpuri [1986]- D was caught smuggling what he believed to be heroin and cannabis into the country (but was actually dried cabbage). He was charged with attempting to import a prohibited drug and this was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. What do you think the House Of Lords Did? They upheld his conviction- He had intended to commit an offence and should be judged on the facts as he believed them!

15. C ASE LAW What was the principle of the case of Whybrow [1951]? Held that D could not be guilty of attempted murder where only intended serious injury Can someone be guilty of attempting to handle stolen goods if it turns out that the goods are not stolen? Explain your answer using relevant case law. Yes – R v Shivpuri (1986) – D agreed to receive a suitcase he thought contained drugs. When it was delivered it only contained snuff, harmless veg matter but he was still convicted of ‘attempting to be knowingly concerned in dealing with prohibited drugs’.

16. C OURSEWORK T EASER Below is one of the leading cases on attempts, it sounds familiar! R v White [1910]- D intended to kill his mother and put cyanide in her water. Before she could drink the water she suffered a heart attack and died. D was originally convicted of murder but lacked the necessary actus reus. He was however guilty of Attempted Murder.

17. A F INAL S UMMARY …. H ONESTLY ! Attempts- Mens Rea- An act with the intention to commit an offence. Actus Reus- An act which is more than ‘merely preparatory’.