Preliminary Attempts

?
  • Created by: erw16
  • Created on: 16-03-19 19:49

The law on attempts is there to ensure that those who plan to comitt an offence but fail to complete the actus reus, can be punished and the attempts existence means that if police are aware that an offence is going to take place then they can arrest the suspect before it is complete. If the defendant is found guilty, then they will usually face the same maximum penalty that applies to the full offence.

In the case of R v White, the defendant tried to poison his mother in order to gain his inheritance, however she died of a heart attack before she had drank enough poison which had been placed in her drink. The prosecution could not prove that he was the factual cause of his death, however 'but for' his actions she would still have died.

The problem with prosecuting for an attempt, is that it is difficult to draw a line for at what stage the defendant can become criminally liable for an attempted crime.

The law on attempts is contained in the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. S1(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."

The actus reus for attempts is that the act must be "more than merely preparatory". Since the act does not define this phrase, it is a matter for the jury to decide on a case-by-case basis. The judge must first consider whether there is enough evidence to go before the jury, but if so, it is entirley a matter of fact for them. It is up to them to decide whether the defendant has passed the prepartion stage and progressed to something beyond that. Obviously, this is not an easy decision to make. In R v Gullefer 1987, it was held that the defendant needs to try and complete the act, but fails in doing so.

In R v Jones (Kenneth) 1990, there was sufficient evidence for the consideration of the jury on the charge of attempted murder, once the defendant had loaded and pointed the gun at the victim.

In R v Campbell 1991, the court quashed his attempted robbery conviction as he had yet to complete or even start the act, as he was stopped before he could reach the Post Office.

Since Gullefer, the courts have stressed that the words of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 are to be followed rather than tests laid down in pre-statute cases.

In R v Geddes, the defendant was found

Comments

No comments have yet been made