Inchoate Offences
Main Objectives:
What is incitement?
What is conspiracy?
What is an Attempt?
Why are inchoate offences necessary?
What is the difference between preparation and
embarking on a crime proper?
What mens rea is required in Attempt cases?
Inchoate Offences
These are offences where the main one has not
been completed. They are concerned with
planning and preparing for an offence to be
committed. The main ones are:Incitement
Conspiracy
Attempt
Can not be charged with an offence of incitement,
conspiracy or attempt. It must be incitement to
commit specific offence …
Incitement
Common Law offence
Involves one person encouraging another to commit a crime.
Actus Reus for Incitement is one of following:Advice
Financial Payment
Threats
Pressure
Persuasion
Goading
Mens Rea involves D intending that the offence should take place and
knowing that it is an offence.
D can be guilty even if main offence has not been carried out or is not
impossible.
Invicta Plastics ltd V Clare 1976- CO Guilty of advertising a product
which encouraged people to commit driving offences
If in magistrates court max penalty is that for main offence
If in Crown Court Judge can sentence inciter to a greater punishment
than principal offender.
Without inciter offence would probably not been committed.
Fair or Not
In groups consider
Should the person who commits a crime
receive a lesser sentence than those who
encouraged them? Give reasons for your
answer.
5 min
Conspiracy
Covered by statute law and interpreted by courts.
Where two or more people agree to commit a criminal
offence.
Actus Reus is agreement- once agreed intention then the
offence has occurred. Intended offence does not need to
be carried out.
Not all parties to the crime have to have met but must agree.
Defences: Spouses, Victim or person under age of criminal
responsibility are involved in agreement.
Defence of withdrawal may not be enough if crime then
carried out.
Mens Rea is intention to carry out main offence.
Sentence is the maximum of the crime committed.
Group Exercise


Why do you think the defence of
withdrawal may not be available in
conspiracy cases? Give reasons for your
answer
Why do you think there is a defence
where the victim, spouse or person under
age of criminal responsibility are involved
in agreement allowed?
Attempt is More than just
preparation!

Copy out s 1 (1) Criminal Attempts Act
1981 using a different colour, leave a line
between each sentence. Pg 59
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
(This forms the actus reus of attempt).
ATTEMPTS
The distinction between what is merely preparatory and
what is more than merely preparatory is made by case
law.
Gullefer (1987)
Read page 60.
The D’s acts were simply preparation, he had not started
on the crime proper. In this case he had not submitted
his betting slips and he had not committed the act of
theft.
Held-NO ATTEMPT!!
Common Law Tests of Attempt
Before attempt was defined by the 1981 Attempts Act the
courts used several different tests to decide if D had
actually done enough towards commission of offence to
be guilty of offence. Main two were proximity test and
last act test
Proximity test- R V Robinson 1915
Rubicon Test- R V Widdowson 1986
Series of Acts- Boyle V Boyle 1986
Gullefer Test- R V Gullefer 1990
Geddes Test- R V Geddes 1996
In groups look at the following cases ( pg 59-61) and
explain what each test looks at and how they are
different to each other.
ATTEMPT
Therefore D must go
beyond just preparing for a
crime!
ATTEMPT

In contrast, in the following cases attempt was
established….
AG REFERENCE(no. 1 of 1992)(1993)
No need to have reached the point of no return.
The fact that he couldn’t get an erection did not
mean there was no attempted rape.
Read page 60. Do you agree with this ruling?
Taking off the hinges…
BOYLE & BOYLE (1987)
D had done part of a series of acts which would have led
to a crime being committed- in this case a burglary.
This means taking a door off one of it’s hinges being
part of a series of acts was sufficient as an attempt, that
is to say it was ‘more than merely preparatory’ for
attempted burglary
RE JONES (1990)-What were the facts???
Attempt or no attempt??
Note; Despite the above, there are no hard and fast rules to decide what is merely
preparatory and what is more than preparatory, ultimately each case is decided on
it’s own individual circumstances!!!!
ATTEMPT
Mens Rea
Mens rea for an attempt at the main offence is the
same as the mens rea for committing the offence in
full.
If this is not proven=no attempt=not guilty!
Husseyn (1977)
Easom (1971)
The mens rea for theft requires an intention to
permanently deprive. As the accused put the bag back
down without removing any content-he did not
possess the required mens rea and thus could not be
convicted of attempted theft.

CONDITIONAL ATTEMPT
What precedent was set in:
-AG Reference (no’s. 1& 2 of
1979)(1979)

Do you think this ruling is more
appropriate?
ATTEMPT

Recklessness is not normally sufficient as mens rea
for attempt. Millard & Vernon (1987)

Exception-recklessness as to one part of the offence
is sufficient..
Read page 63
ATTEMPT



Before the CAA 1981, a D could not be
guilty of an offence that was legally or
physically impossible to commit.
This is now changed as a result of Section 1
(2) of the Act.
Read page 65. Do you think the ruling in
Shivpuri was fair?
ATTEMPT


THINK- Where D sets off to murder V, not knowing
V has already passed away in his sleep, and
approaches the body with a sharpened blade and with
an intent to kill V… Surely if D has demonstarted a
willingness to commit the offence of murder with his
actions being more than preparatory then should he
too not be punished same as an actual murderer????
The law on attempt, allowing attempts at the
impossible fills this gap in public safety.
ATTEMPT


Discuss whether the current law relating to
attempted crimes strikes the right balance
between protecting society and convicting those
who need to be punished.’ (OCR, Unit 2571, June
2004)
‘
Relevant issues=
-Protecting the Public????Inchoate offences are all aimed at allowing early
prevention of crime, allowing police to make arrests at
earlier stages, dealing with the threat prior to the
occurrence of the full offence thus affording society a
greater degree of protection. It would be ridiculous to
expect the police to wait until a member of the publics
has been made a victim.
ATTEMPT
Similarly with Campbell, did the accused need to have
stepped inside the post office until he could be arrested
for attempt. or would it be when he uncovered the
imitation fire arm or threatened force or when he
demanded the money???? At what point can arrest for
attempt be made???
THINK-Should it really be left until the proposed danger
becomes a real threat?????

Such decisions are therefore failing in protecting the well
being of the general public!!!
ATTEMPT


-ImpossibilityCan you identify why decisions such as
those in Shivpuri and Anderton & Ryan
caused the controversy they did??
Is punishing based on intention going too
far in an effort to protect the public or is it
striking the right balance???
R v Robinson 1915




D was a jeweller who had insured his stock against
theft. He decided to claim on the policy by hiding
stock around the shop. He tied himself up and then
called the police.
His scheme was uncovered and he was prosecuted
for obtaining money from his insurer to the value of
£1200.
His defence argued that since he had not obtained,
filled in or sent the claim off he was not guilty of the
offence.
C of A agreed and quashed his sentence. His acts
were not immediately connected with the main
offence. However he may have been charged with
wasting police time
R v Gullefer 1987
D jumped onto a race track in order to have
the race declared void and so enable him
to reclaim money he had bet on the race.
However he did not submit the betting slips.
His conviction for attempting to steel was
quashed because the act was merely
preparatory to committing the offence.
Geddes 1996




D was found in the boys lavatory block of a
school, in possession of a large kitchen knife,
some rope, and masking tape. He had no right
to be in the school. He had not contacted any
of the pupils.
His conviction for attempted false imprisonment
was quashed . Court asked 2 qu.
1. had he moved from preparation to
implementation
2 had he done something tangible to show that
he was trying to commit the offence or where
his actions simply putting himself into a position
to commit the act?
R V Boyle and Boyle
Both found by a door whose lock and
hinges had been broken.
D had done part of a series of acts which
would have led to a crime being
committed- in this case a burglary, had
they not been caught by the policeman
R v White 1910


A son poisoned his mother with potassium
cyanide but before the poison could take
effect and kill her she died of a heart
attack.
He was not liable for her death but was
convicted of attempted murder instead of
murder
Questions









Define the crime of incitement
What is the punishment for incitement?
Give three examples of incitement
Outline the key issues in Invicta Plastics Ltd V Clare 1976
What are the main defences against conspiracy?
What criminal issue does R V White 1910 illustrate?
Outline the key elements of the Criminal Attempts Act
1981
Explain the main common law tests used to establish
attempts
Explain the mens rea of attempts
Exam Question

Incitement to commit a crime is as serious
as conspiracy to commit a crime.
Comment (50 marks)
Bibliography


Exam Qu, Case Law, and Section
QuestionsTaken from
Martin.J, Criminal Law for A2, Hodder
Arnold, London, 2006- course text book