- Created by: luketbrookes97
- Created on: 01-06-17 17:47
· Defined under S1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 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.”
· Actus reus- A person does an act with is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence
· Mens rea- with intent to commit the offence
· White (1910)where D tries to poison his mother to kill her is an example of where an attempted murder has been committed.
Actus Reus of an Attempt
· In the past two tests were given the “Last act” test and the “Proximity” test.
· Last act- has D done the last act he could do before committing the main crime?
· Proximity test- were the defendant’s acts so “immediately connected” to the actus reus of the offence as to justify liability for an attempt?
· After the passing of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 the defendant has to have moved to being “more than merely preparatory” to the crime proper.
· Attorney Generals Reference (No1 of 1992)- D dragged a girl into a shed lowered his trousers and fiddled with her privates, his penis remained flaccid. Implication: D dragging girl is only merely preparatory. Lowering his trousers is only merely preparatory. Moving to interfere with her privates is more than merely preparatory for ****.
· Gullefer (1987)- held that more than merely preparatory means D must have gone beyond purley preparatory acts and has “embarked on the crime proper.”
Cases showing mere preparation
· Gullefer (1987)- D jumps onto a race track to make a race void so he could claim money back he had on a bet. Implication: Jumping onto a race track was only merely preparatory to theft, D would have needed to ask for his money back for an attempt to be committed.
· Geddes (1996)- D caught hiding in a school toilet with restraining equipment and a weapon. Implication: Courts gave two pieces of criteria:
· 1. Has D moved from planning or preparation to execution or implementation?
· 2. Had the accused done an act showing the he was actually trying to commit the full offence or has he only got so far as getting ready?
· Campbell (1997)- D was stopped outside a post office with a fake gun, a threatening note and sunglasses to mask his face. Implication: D would have had to have entered the post office for an attempt to have occurred, his actions were still only mere preparation.
· Criticism- If the law on attempts is to be effective in protecting the public from the main offence then surely Geddes and Campbell should have been guilty? Is it…