Inchoate OffencesInchoate OffencesMain Objectives:Main Objectives:What is incitement?What is incitement?What is conspiracy?What is conspiracy?What is an Attempt?What is an Attempt?Why are inchoate offences necessary?Why are inchoate offences necessary?What is the difference between preparation and What is the difference between preparation and embarking on a crime proper?embarking on a crime proper?What mens rea is required in Attempt cases?What mens rea is required in Attempt cases?

Inchoate OffencesInchoate Offences

These are offences where the main one has These are offences where the main one has not been completed. They are concerned not been completed. They are concerned with planning and preparing for an offence with planning and preparing for an offence to be committed. The main ones are:-to be committed. The main ones are:-

IncitementIncitementConspiracyConspiracyAttemptAttemptCan not be charged with an offence of Can not be charged with an offence of

incitement, conspiracy or attempt. It must incitement, conspiracy or attempt. It must be incitement to commit be incitement to commit specific offencespecific offence ……

IncitementIncitementCommon Law offenceCommon Law offenceInvolves one person encouraging another to commit a crime. Involves one person encouraging another to commit a crime. Actus Reus for Incitement is one of following:-Actus Reus for Incitement is one of following:-AdviceAdvice Financial PaymentFinancial PaymentThreatsThreats PressurePressurePersuasionPersuasion GoadingGoadingMens Rea involves D intending that the offence should take Mens Rea involves D intending that the offence should take

place and knowing that it is an offence. place and knowing that it is an offence. D can be guilty even if main offence has not been carried out or D can be guilty even if main offence has not been carried out or

is not impossible.is not impossible.Invicta Plastics ltd V Clare 1976- CO Guilty of advertising a Invicta Plastics ltd V Clare 1976- CO Guilty of advertising a

product which encouraged people to commit driving offencesproduct which encouraged people to commit driving offencesIf in magistrates court max penalty is that for main offenceIf in magistrates court max penalty is that for main offenceIf in Crown Court Judge can sentence inciter to a greater If in Crown Court Judge can sentence inciter to a greater

punishment than principal offender.punishment than principal offender.Without inciter offence would probably not been committed.Without inciter offence would probably not been committed.

Fair or NotFair or Not

In groups consider In groups consider

Should the person who commits a Should the person who commits a crime receive a lesser sentence than crime receive a lesser sentence than those who encouraged them? Give those who encouraged them? Give reasons for your answer. reasons for your answer.

5 min5 min

ConspiracyConspiracy

Covered by statute law and interpreted by courts.Covered by statute law and interpreted by courts.Where two or more people agree to commit a criminal Where two or more people agree to commit a criminal

offence.offence.Actus Reus is agreement- once agreed intention then Actus Reus is agreement- once agreed intention then

the offence has occurred. Intended offence does not the offence has occurred. Intended offence does not need to be carried out. need to be carried out.

Not all parties to the crime have to have met but must Not all parties to the crime have to have met but must agree.agree.

Defences: Spouses, Victim or person under age of Defences: Spouses, Victim or person under age of criminal responsibility are involved in agreement.criminal responsibility are involved in agreement.

Defence of withdrawal may not be enough if crime Defence of withdrawal may not be enough if crime then carried out.then carried out.

Mens Rea is intention to carry out main offence.Mens Rea is intention to carry out main offence.Sentence is the maximum of the crime committedSentence is the maximum of the crime committed ..

Group ExerciseGroup Exercise

Why do you think the defence of Why do you think the defence of withdrawal may not be available in withdrawal may not be available in conspiracy cases? Give reasons for conspiracy cases? Give reasons for your answeryour answer

Why do you think there is a defence Why do you think there is a defence where the victim, spouse or person where the victim, spouse or person under age of criminal responsibility under age of criminal responsibility are involved in agreement allowed?are involved in agreement allowed?

Attempt is More than just Attempt is More than just preparation!preparation!

Copy out s 1 (1) Criminal Attempts Act Copy out s 1 (1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 using a different colour, leave a 1981 using a different colour, leave a line between each sentence. Pg 59 line between each sentence. Pg 59

(This forms the actus reus of attempt).(This forms the actus reus of attempt).

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

ATTEMPTSATTEMPTS

The distinction between what is merely The distinction between what is merely preparatory and what is more than merely preparatory and what is more than merely preparatory is made by case law.preparatory is made by case law.

Gullefer (1987) Gullefer (1987)

Read page 60.Read page 60.

The D’s acts were simply preparation, he had not The D’s acts were simply preparation, he had not started on the crime proper. In this case he had started on the crime proper. In this case he had not submitted his betting slips and he had not not submitted his betting slips and he had not committed the act of theft.committed the act of theft.Held-NO ATTEMPT!!Held-NO ATTEMPT!!

Common Law Tests of AttemptCommon Law Tests of Attempt

Before attempt was defined by the 1981 Attempts Before attempt was defined by the 1981 Attempts Act the courts used several different tests to Act the courts used several different tests to decide if D had actually done enough towards decide if D had actually done enough towards commission of offence to be guilty of offence. commission of offence to be guilty of offence. Main two were proximity test and last act testMain two were proximity test and last act test

Proximity test- R V Robinson 1915Proximity test- R V Robinson 1915Rubicon Test- R V Widdowson 1986Rubicon Test- R V Widdowson 1986Series of Acts- Boyle V Boyle 1986Series of Acts- Boyle V Boyle 1986Gullefer Test- R V Gullefer 1990Gullefer Test- R V Gullefer 1990Geddes Test- R V Geddes 1996Geddes Test- R V Geddes 1996In groups look at the following cases ( pg 59-61) In groups look at the following cases ( pg 59-61)

and explain what each test looks at and how they and explain what each test looks at and how they are different to each other.are different to each other.

ATTEMPTATTEMPT

Therefore D must go Therefore D must go beyond just preparing beyond just preparing for a crime!for a crime!

ATTEMPTATTEMPT

In contrast, in the following cases attempt In contrast, in the following cases attempt was established….was established….

AG REFERENCE(no. 1 of 1992)(1993)AG REFERENCE(no. 1 of 1992)(1993)

No need to have reached the point of no No need to have reached the point of no return.return.

The fact that he couldn’t get an erection did The fact that he couldn’t get an erection did not mean there was no attempted rape.not mean there was no attempted rape.

Read page 60. Do you agree with this ruling?Read page 60. Do you agree with this ruling?

Taking off the hinges…Taking off the hinges…

BOYLE & BOYLE (1987)BOYLE & BOYLE (1987)D had done part of a series of acts which would D had done part of a series of acts which would have led to a crime being committed- in this case have led to a crime being committed- in this case a burglary. a burglary.

This means taking a door off one of it’s hinges This means taking a door off one of it’s hinges being part of a series of acts was sufficient as an being part of a series of acts was sufficient as an attempt, that is to say it was ‘more than merely attempt, that is to say it was ‘more than merely preparatory’ for attempted burglarypreparatory’ for attempted burglary

RE JONES (1990)-RE JONES (1990)-What were the facts???What were the facts??? Attempt or no attempt??Attempt or no attempt??

Note; Note; Despite the above, there are no hard and fast rules to decide what is Despite the above, there are no hard and fast rules to decide what is merely preparatory and what is more than preparatory, merely preparatory and what is more than preparatory, ultimatelyultimately each each case is decided on it’s own individual circumstances!!!!case is decided on it’s own individual circumstances!!!!

ATTEMPTATTEMPT Mens ReaMens ReaMens rea for an Mens rea for an attemptattempt at the main offence is the at the main offence is the

same as the mens rea for committing the offence same as the mens rea for committing the offence in full.in full.

If this is not proven=no attempt=not guilty!If this is not proven=no attempt=not guilty!Husseyn (1977)Husseyn (1977)Easom (1971)Easom (1971)

The mens rea for theft requires an intention to The mens rea for theft requires an intention to permanently deprivepermanently deprive. As the accused put the bag . As the accused put the bag back down without removing any content-he did back down without removing any content-he did not possess the required mens rea and thus could not possess the required mens rea and thus could not be convicted of attempted theft.not be convicted of attempted theft.

CONDITIONAL ATTEMPTCONDITIONAL ATTEMPT

What precedent was set in:What precedent was set in:

--AG Reference (no’s. 1& 2 of 1979)AG Reference (no’s. 1& 2 of 1979)(1979)(1979)

Do you think this ruling is more Do you think this ruling is more appropriate?appropriate?

ATTEMPTATTEMPT RecklessnessRecklessness is not normally sufficient as mens is not normally sufficient as mens

rea for attempt. rea for attempt. Millard & Vernon (1987)Millard & Vernon (1987)

Exception-recklessness as to one part of the Exception-recklessness as to one part of the offence is sufficient..offence is sufficient..

Read page 63Read page 63

ATTEMPTATTEMPT

Before the CAA 1981, a D could not be Before the CAA 1981, a D could not be guilty of an offence that was legally or guilty of an offence that was legally or physically impossible to commit.physically impossible to commit.

This is now changed as a result of This is now changed as a result of Section 1 (2) of the Act.Section 1 (2) of the Act.

Read page 65. Do you think the ruling in Read page 65. Do you think the ruling in Shivpuri was fair?Shivpuri was fair?

ATTEMPTATTEMPT

THINK- THINK- Where D sets off to murder V, not Where D sets off to murder V, not knowing V has already passed away in his sleep, knowing V has already passed away in his sleep, and approaches the body with a sharpened blade and approaches the body with a sharpened blade and with an intent to kill V… Surely if D has and with an intent to kill V… Surely if D has demonstarted a willingness to commit the offence demonstarted a willingness to commit the offence of murder with his actions being more than of murder with his actions being more than preparatory then should he too not be punished preparatory then should he too not be punished same as an actual murderer????same as an actual murderer????

The law on attempt, allowing attempts at the The law on attempt, allowing attempts at the impossible fills this gap in public safety.impossible fills this gap in public safety.

ATTEMPTATTEMPT

‘‘Discuss whether the current law relating to Discuss whether the current law relating to attempted crimes strikes the right balance attempted crimes strikes the right balance between protecting society and convicting between protecting society and convicting those who need to be punished.’those who need to be punished.’ (OCR, Unit (OCR, Unit 2571, June 2004)2571, June 2004)Relevant issues=Relevant issues=

-Protecting the Public????--Protecting the Public????-Inchoate offences are all aimed at allowing early Inchoate offences are all aimed at allowing early prevention of crime, allowing police to make prevention of crime, allowing police to make arrests at earlier stages, dealing with the threat arrests at earlier stages, dealing with the threat prior to the occurrence of the full offence thus prior to the occurrence of the full offence thus affording society a greater degree of protection. It affording society a greater degree of protection. It would be ridiculous to expect the police to wait would be ridiculous to expect the police to wait until a member of the publics has been made a until a member of the publics has been made a victim.victim.

ATTEMPTATTEMPT

Similarly with Similarly with CampbellCampbell, did the accused need to , did the accused need to have stepped inside the post office until he could have stepped inside the post office until he could be arrested for attempt. or would it be when he be arrested for attempt. or would it be when he uncovered the imitation fire arm or threatened uncovered the imitation fire arm or threatened force or when he demanded the money???? At force or when he demanded the money???? At what point can arrest for attempt be made???what point can arrest for attempt be made???

THINK-THINK-Should it really be left until the proposed Should it really be left until the proposed danger becomes a real threat?????danger becomes a real threat?????

Such decisions are therefore failing in protecting Such decisions are therefore failing in protecting the well being of the general public!!!the well being of the general public!!!

ATTEMPTATTEMPT

-Impossibility--Impossibility- Can you identify why decisions such Can you identify why decisions such

as those in as those in ShivpuriShivpuri and and Anderton & Anderton & RyanRyan caused the controversy they caused the controversy they did??did??

Is punishing based on intention going Is punishing based on intention going too far in an effort to protect the too far in an effort to protect the public or is it striking the right public or is it striking the right balance???balance???

R v Robinson 1915R v Robinson 1915 D was a jeweller who had insured his stock against D was a jeweller who had insured his stock against

theft. He decided to claim on the policy by hiding theft. He decided to claim on the policy by hiding stock around the shop. He tied himself up and then stock around the shop. He tied himself up and then called the police.called the police.

His scheme was uncovered and he was prosecuted His scheme was uncovered and he was prosecuted for obtaining money from his insurer to the value of for obtaining money from his insurer to the value of £1200.£1200.

His defence argued that since he had not obtained, His defence argued that since he had not obtained, filled in or sent the claim off he was not guilty of the filled in or sent the claim off he was not guilty of the offence. offence.

C of A agreed and quashed his sentence. His acts C of A agreed and quashed his sentence. His acts were not immediately connected with the main were not immediately connected with the main offence. However he may have been charged with offence. However he may have been charged with wasting police timewasting police time

R v Gullefer 1987R v Gullefer 1987

D jumped onto a race track in order to have D jumped onto a race track in order to have the race declared void and so enable him the race declared void and so enable him to reclaim money he had bet on the race. to reclaim money he had bet on the race.

However he did not submit the betting slips.However he did not submit the betting slips.

His conviction for attempting to steel was His conviction for attempting to steel was quashed because the act was merely quashed because the act was merely preparatory to committing the offence.preparatory to committing the offence.

Geddes 1996Geddes 1996 D was found in the boys lavatory block of a D was found in the boys lavatory block of a

school, in possession of a large kitchen knife, school, in possession of a large kitchen knife, some rope, and masking tape. He had no right to some rope, and masking tape. He had no right to be in the school. He had not contacted any of the be in the school. He had not contacted any of the pupils. pupils.

His conviction for attempted false imprisonment His conviction for attempted false imprisonment was quashed . Court asked 2 qu.was quashed . Court asked 2 qu.

1. had he moved from preparation to 1. had he moved from preparation to implementationimplementation

2 had he done something tangible to show that 2 had he done something tangible to show that he was trying to commit the offence or where his he was trying to commit the offence or where his actions simply putting himself into a position to actions simply putting himself into a position to commit the act?commit the act?

R V Boyle and BoyleR V Boyle and Boyle

Both found by a door whose lock and Both found by a door whose lock and hinges had been broken. hinges had been broken.

D had done part of a series of acts which D had done part of a series of acts which would have led to a crime being would have led to a crime being committed- in this case a burglary, committed- in this case a burglary, had they not been caught by the had they not been caught by the policemanpoliceman

R v White 1910R v White 1910

A son poisoned his mother with A son poisoned his mother with potassium cyanide but before the potassium cyanide but before the poison could take effect and kill her poison could take effect and kill her she died of a heart attack. she died of a heart attack.

He was not liable for her death but He was not liable for her death but was convicted of attempted murder was convicted of attempted murder instead of murderinstead of murder

QuestionsQuestions Define the crime of incitementDefine the crime of incitement What is the punishment for incitement?What is the punishment for incitement? Give three examples of incitementGive three examples of incitement Outline the key issues in Invicta Plastics Ltd V Outline the key issues in Invicta Plastics Ltd V

Clare 1976Clare 1976 What are the main defences against conspiracy?What are the main defences against conspiracy? What criminal issue does R V White 1910 What criminal issue does R V White 1910

illustrate?illustrate? Outline the key elements of the Criminal Outline the key elements of the Criminal

Attempts Act 1981Attempts Act 1981 Explain the main common law tests used to Explain the main common law tests used to

establish attemptsestablish attempts Explain the mens rea of attemptsExplain the mens rea of attempts

Exam QuestionExam Question

Incitement to commit a crime is as Incitement to commit a crime is as serious as conspiracy to commit a serious as conspiracy to commit a crime. Comment (50 marks)crime. Comment (50 marks)

BibliographyBibliography

Exam Qu, Case Law, and Section Exam Qu, Case Law, and Section QuestionsTaken fromQuestionsTaken from

Martin.J, Criminal Law for A2, Hodder Martin.J, Criminal Law for A2, Hodder Arnold, London, 2006- course text Arnold, London, 2006- course text bookbook