INCHOATE OFFENCES: MADE WITH YOU IN
MIND
THE OFFENCES!
1.
Attempts
ACTIVITY

Make up your own attempted offence, explaining how
the actus reus and mens rea are fulfilled.
ATTEMPTS
The Criminal Attempts Act 1981 codifies the common law relating to
Attempts and in s. 1(1) defines it 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”.
Attempts are unusual in criminal law as when they are considered by
the courts and legal academics it is with regards to the mens rea
first……..
Why?
ATTEMPTS…. IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MENS REA
From the definition in the act It’s clear to see that for attempt we
need:
1.
An intentional act (Mens Rea)
2.
Which is more then preparatory! (Actus Reus)
WHAT IS AN INCHOATE OFFENCE?
Its means ‘Just begun’ or ‘undeveloped’, in criminal law
it is used to describe activities which precede the
commission of a full offence but are criminal offences in
themselves. e.g. conspiracy to commit murder, theft etc.
 Name the Statute that contains the law relating to
inchoate offences?
 S1 (1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981

Name the 3 things required to prove that an attempt to
commit a crime has been made?
 1-That the defendant did an act more than merely
preparatory
 2-To the commission of an indictable offence
 3- An intent to commit that offence

WHAT IS THE ACTUS REUS FOR ATTEMPTS?

A person does an act that is more than preparatory to
commit the indictable offence

Can an act be committed by an omission?

Yes it can apply to omissions where in cases where
there was a duty to act e.g. parental relationship
MORE THEN ‘MERELY PREPARATORY’
By being more then ‘merely preparatory’ D’s conduct must be close to
committing the actual offence, it is best illustrated with case law.
R v Campbell (1991)- D was arrested outside a Post Office, carrying a
gun, a threatening note and in disguise. His original conviction of
attempted robbery was quashed by the Court of Appeal. His acts
were less then preparatory, he would only satisfy this once he
entered the Post Office.
R v Jones [1990]- D pointed a shotgun at V. He was convicted of
attempted murder. Even though he would have had to remove the
safety catch, put his finger on the trigger and then pull it before he
could commit the offence. His actions were seen as more then
preparatory.
WHAT DOES THE TERM ‘MERELY PREPARATORY’ MEAN?



This term distinguishes between those acts that cannot
amount to an attempt because its too early, and those that
are advanced enough to show that an attempt is ‘on’
So that means there has to be more than mere preparation
for the main crime. Some acts are obviously mere
preparation, but other acts are more difficult to categorise
An example is a where a D buys himself a shot gun and
converted it to a sawn off shot gun. Both the buying and the
converting are ‘merely preparatory’ the drive to the bankpreparatory- but standing outside the bank, carrying the
sawn off shot gun in a bag – closer but still preparatory. When
he walks into the bank its gone beyond preparation and can
be charged with attempted robbery.

Please give a case example to highlight the meaning
more than ‘merely preparatory’

Jones/ Boyle and Boyle/ Gullefrer

What type of offence do attempts apply to.

Anything that can be tried on indictment
INTENTION BY ANY OTHER NAME
At this point it is important to show what is meant by intention, sadly it
isn’t as straight forward as it sounds.
Intention- 2 main definitions:
1.
Direct Intent- simple to define but hard to prove, I directly intend
an action (e.g. Before coming at you with a knife I shout “I’m
going to kill you!!!!”).
Oblique Intent- More common but difficult to explain, A
consequence is a ‘virtual certainty’ of my actions (e.g. I come at
you with a knife and stab you in the head to shut you up, as a
result you die).
The leading case on Oblique intent is R v Woolin which is always
worth a look.
2.
WHAT IS THE MENS REA FOR ATTEMPTS?

Intent to commit that criminal offence- same intention as required for the
full offence and if the prosecution cannot show that the D had this
intention then they are not guilty of the attempt

Also to be guilty of attempts the D must intend the consequence specified
in the Actus reus

Is recklessness enough for mens rea?

In Millard and Vernon 1987 it was decided that recklessness was not
enough- they had not intended to destroy or damage the fence
So usually recklessness is not sufficient MR for an attempt. This is so even
where recklessness would suffice for the completed defence.
However there is an exception- recklessness to one part of the offence can
be sufficient as illustrated in Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1992)
(1994)



ATTEMPTING INTENTION
R v Mohan [1975]- D (a police officer) signalled a driver D to stop; D
drove at C, who jumped out of the way. D was convicted of
attempting to cause bodily harm by wanton driving. Allowing his
appeal, the Court said the judge had been wrong to direct the jury
in terms of recklessness as to harm. Any attempt requires mens rea
in the form of a specific intent to commit the substantive offence.
R v Shivpuri [1986]- D was caught smuggling what he believed to be
heroin and cannabis into the country (but was actually dried
cabbage). He was charged with attempting to import a prohibited
drug and this was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
What do you think the House Of Lords Did?
They upheld his conviction- He had intended to commit an offence
and should be judged on the facts as he believed them!
CASE LAW
What was the principle of the case of Whybrow [1951]?
 Held that D could not be guilty of attempted murder
where only intended serious injury
 Can someone be guilty of attempting to handle stolen
goods if it turns out that the goods are not stolen?
Explain your answer using relevant case law.
 Yes – R v Shivpuri (1986) – D agreed to receive a
suitcase he thought contained drugs. When it was
delivered it only contained snuff, harmless veg matter
but he was still convicted of ‘attempting to be
knowingly concerned in dealing with prohibited drugs’.

COURSEWORK TEASER
Below is one of the leading cases on attempts, it sounds familiar!
R v White [1910]- D intended to kill his mother and put cyanide in her
water. Before she could drink the water she suffered a heart attack
and died. D was originally convicted of murder but lacked the
necessary actus reus. He was however guilty of Attempted Murder.
A FINAL SUMMARY…. HONESTLY!
AttemptsMens Rea- An act with the intention to commit an offence.
Actus Reus- An act which is more than ‘merely preparatory’.