• Created by: Rebeka188
  • Created on: 14-04-16 21:28
View mindmap
  • Attempt
    • s.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981
      • actus reus
        • performing an act which is more than merely preparatory of the offence
          • current ruling test: is D on the job?
  • Campbell: attemp. robbery, post office, disguise, note -  not sufficietly proximate to the offence                             
  • mens rea
    • A must intend to commit a criminal offence. Recklessness is not enough. 
      • recklessness as to the circumstances may be enough as long as the accused indents the conduct element of the offence
        • Khan: reckless as to whether the woman consented to sex                             charged with attempted ****, it was only necessary that he intended the conduct element of the crime, was not necessary to know for sure that she was not consenting, recklessness is enough for the circumstances element
          • 1.  ‘conduct-circumstances’ test first, that test says that to be guilty of attempting to commit an offence X, you have to intend to commit the conduct element of the offence while having the mental element in relation to the circumstances surrounding your conduct that would be required for the full offence. 
        • A-G’s Reference (No.3 of 1992)           D tried to set fire to a building which he knew to be inhabited. He did not intend to endanger the occupant’s lives but he foresaw this. Enough that he intended to commit arson, foresight was enough as to whether there were people inside, he was guilty of attempted aggravated 
          • 2. 'missing element test' says that a defendant will have the mens rea for an attempt if he has an intent to supply the missing element or elements that prevented the defendant being guilty of the full offence.  
      • Mohan –  It was not sufficient for an attempt to cause bodily harm by dangerous driving to  prove that A did not care whether he hit the police officer when attempting to escape. 
      • O’Toole – to be guilty of attempted arson requires proof that A intended to cause damage by fire. A reckless use of combustibles is not enough.- intention needed for attempt                          
    • Pearman: intention has the same meaning as in the common law  applying Mohan - includes direct and indirect intention
    • Millard and Vernon
      • where the substantive offence requires proof of a result or consequence, the offence of attempt will require proof of an intention as to that consequence- attempt the same;    where the substantive offence requires proof of a mental element short of an intention (recklessness) as to result, only intention will do in attempt
  • Smith: attempt to steal, one can have a condition intention: attempting to steal any or all of the content of the container, bag, is possible to steal smtng that turns out to be impossible (examining empty container)
  • Shivpury: D believed he was dealing with a controlled drug, in fact it was just "snuff"I: he intended to commit an offence, no need to know actual nature of substance - the fact that it was factually impossible was irrelevant
  • Fitzmaurice: F: D incited others to rob a woman, not knowing that the neither the supposed V nor the physical transport of money were actually supposed to occur.I: convicted of impossible attempt


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all crim resources »