A2 Law Revision

How to do…..Section A Questions

Attempts

‘The Criminal Attempts Act 1981 was intended to improve the law on attempts. The extent to which it has succeeded is open to doubt’

Critically evaluate the accuracy of this statement

AO1 Actus Reus

• Firstly you need to define the Criminal Attempts Act as being a piece of codifying legislation that holds the required mens rea and actus reus

• Attempting to commit an offence“1) 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”.

“More than merely preparatory”

• Gullefer; The former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, decided that the attempt could not be said to begin until the defendant embarked upon 'the crime proper'. Gullefer's actions when he jumped onto the track, therefore, were merely acts in preparation for the later crime of theft and, at that time, he could not be said to be guilty of an attempt.

• Jones; The Court of Appeal agreed that the acts of obtaining the gun, shortening it, loading it, putting on a disguise and going to the school were merely preparatory to the commission of the offence. The judges added, however, that 'once he had got into the car, taken out the loaded gun and pointed it at the victim with the intention of killing him there was sufficient evidence for the consideration of the jury on the charge of attempted murder'. The appeal, therefore, was dismissed

• Campbell and Geddes; Both convictions, however, were quashed on appeal on the finding that the acts were not more than merely preparatory. While the appeal court appeared to be convinced in both cases that the defendants had the necessary intention to commit the crimes in question, they nevertheless felt bound to conclude that the actions were not advanced enough to merit a conviction.

Mens rea

• This is seen in;• Mohan; The jury were directed that the

prosecution had to prove that D realised that such wanton driving would be likely to cause bodily harm. 

• Held: Intent is an essential ingredient of an attempt and is only mens rea of attempts.

• Recklessness would often suffice as the mens rea for the full offence, attempt was a separate and often more serious offence with its own separate mens rea.

• Whybrow; Only intent to kill suffices for attempted murder, because "the intent becomes the principal ingredient of the crime".  Intent to cause grievous bodily harm was sufficient mens rea for the full offence of murder.

Particular relevance of recklessness in relation to circumstances

As seen in AG ref (no 3 of 1992) 1994• D was acquitted of attempted arson with

intent to endanger lives or with recklessness as to whether lives are endangered. 

• Held: It was only necessary to prove an intent to cause damage by fire and then recklessness as to whether lives are endangered thereby.

 Not guilty, but would be now

Conditional Intent

As seen in • Easom; "In every case of theft the

appropriation must be accompanied by the intention of permanently depriving the owner of his property. What may be loosely described as a 'conditional' appropriation will not do. If the appropriator has it in mind merely to deprive the owner of such of his property as, on examination, proves worth taking and then, finding that the booty is valueless to the appropriator, leaves it ready to hand to be repossessed by the owner, the appropriator has not stolen. "Not guilty

• AG Ref no 1 and 2 (1979); Conditional intent will suffice, meaning quite simply that all that is required is intent to steal at the time of entry. It is not necessary to prove what was the objected that D intended to steal.

• If it subsequently turns out that there is nothing worth stealing in the building, the defendant still may be prosecuted for burglary.Similar considerations apply where the charge relates to attempted burglary.

Not guilty, but would be now

Impossibility

Discuss as per S1, 2 and 3 Criminal Attempts Act• Anderton v Ryan; D bought a video recorder

believing it to be stolen when it was not. Held: D mistakenly believed - subjectively - it was possible to commit the full offence. It was objectively impossible to commit it. It would be an 'asinine' result if convicted. Parliament cannot have intended such a result. s 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, which overruled the common law of attempt, creates the offence of attempting a crime, which is objectively impossible. Not guilty

• Shivpuri; D attempted to deal and harbour drugs. He believed he might be dealing with a prohibited drug such as cannabis or heroin whereas in fact the substance was harmless powdered vegetable matter, snuff or cabbage.

Held: The House of Lords overturned its previous decision in Anderton v Ryan.

Any attempt to commit an offence carries liability if D Intended to carry out the substantive offence and Did an act that was more than merely preparatory, Even though completion was impossible. Guilty

Reform

http://www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission/areas/conspiracy-and-attempts.htm

These are the ideas and suggestions but none are implemented, made in 2009 - 2010

Sentencing

As per S.4 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981

AO2

Discuss any or all of the following areas;• The problems that come from the

various tests from the various cases• The idea behind attempts is a need to

stop criminal behaviour before an offence is committed

• The need to balance the rights of people and the protection of people, punishment for contemplation or minimal activity in pursuit of a crime

• The desire of parliament to make the decision in these cases down to the jury and their common sense

• Practical difficulties in application of the various tests and law

• Issues in relation to levels of mens rea, particularly in attempted murder

• Proposals for reform – would the US system work better?

• Issues with sentencing inconsistencies

• Does the current law provide deterrent?