Parties to an offence and inchoate offences - Inchoate offences: attempt to commit an offence

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising from the use of the content on this page. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Overview

Attempts in inchoate offences are a key part of criminal law that SQE1 FLK2 exam candidates need to know well. These offences cover actions showing intent to commit a crime, even if not completed. This detailed review discusses the legal framework, core elements, key cases, and practical applications. Understanding this area is vital for aspiring solicitors, demonstrating the law's approach to preventing crime and dealing with intentions rather than completed acts.

The Legal Framework of Attempts

The Criminal Attempts Act 1981 is the main legislation for attempts, marking a significant shift in handling inchoate offences. It replaced the vague and inconsistent common law with a clearer structure.

Pre-1981 Position

Before 1981, common law used "proximity" to decide if an act was an attempt. This approach, seen in cases like R v Eagleton (1855), needed actions to be "immediately connected" with the planned offence, leading to inconsistent rulings.

The Criminal Attempts Act 1981

Section 1(1) of the Act defines an attempt as follows:

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 statutory definition highlights two key elements:

  1. The mental element (mens rea) of intent
  2. The physical element (actus reus) of an act "more than merely preparatory"

Key Elements of Attempt

1. Actus Reus: The Physical Act

The actus reus requires actions "more than merely preparatory" to committing the crime. This standard is subject to extensive interpretation by courts.

Case Law Analysis

  • R v Gullefer [1990]: Planning to rob a post office was ruled as merely preparatory.
  • R v Geddes [1996]: The Court stressed the need for proximity to the completed offence.

2. Mens Rea: The Mental Element

The mens rea requires the specific intent to commit the target offence, remaining present throughout attempted actions.

Intention and Knowledge

The link between intention and knowledge can be complex. In R v Khan [1990], the court held that mistaken belief about a substance didn't affect intent if the belief was genuine.

3. Impossibility: Legal and Factual

Legal and factual impossibility concepts developed after the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

  • Legal impossibility: When completed actions wouldn't constitute a crime.
  • Factual impossibility: When the crime couldn't be completed due to unknown circumstances.

Landmark Case: R v Shivpuri [1987]

This case overturned previous views on impossibility. Lord Bridge stated impossibility is no defence if preparatory actions were taken towards the intended offence.

Advanced Legal Analysis

The 'More Than Merely Preparatory' Test

Defining "more than merely preparatory" remains debated in attempt law. Courts aim to balance prevention with avoiding criminalizing mere thoughts or early actions.

Recent Judicial Approaches

  • R v Gill [2022]: Asserted that the test is objective, focusing on actual actions rather than intent.
  • R v Pace and Rogers [2014]: Emphasized the need to view actions within the overall plan.

Conditional Intent

Conditional intent introduces complex legal issues. In R v Husseyn [1978], the court ruled conditional intent could suffice if the condition was certain.

Attempt and Conspiracy: Overlapping Inchoate Offences

Although both address incomplete crimes, attempt and conspiracy differ in focusing on individual versus collective planning. Understanding these differences is important for exam preparation.

Practical Applications and Exam-Relevant Scenarios

Scenario 1: The Cyber Attack

A group plans an elaborate cyberattack on a bank, intending fraud. Despite detailed planning, their efforts are thwarted by security measures.

Analysis: This likely constitutes an attempt. Their planning and initiation go beyond mere preparation. Unsuccessful efforts due to external factors don't negate the attempt.

Scenario 2: The Attempted Robbery

An individual buys a replica gun, researches store security, and arrives ready to rob. But leaves upon seeing a police car.

Analysis: Actions are more than mere preparation. Buying the gun, researching, and visiting the site show a clear intent to rob. Abandoning does not negate the attempt.

Scenario 3: Drug Trafficking Attempt

An individual arranges to buy what they believe is cocaine from an undercover officer. The substance is legal.

Analysis: As in R v Shivpuri, this is an attempt despite factual impossibility. Arranging the purchase goes beyond preparation, and mistaken belief doesn't negate intent.

Conclusion

Understanding attempt law within inchoate offences is essential for SQE1 FLK2 success. Key points include:

  1. The Criminal Attempts Act 1981 provides the modern framework, replacing earlier approaches.
  2. An attempt requires actions "more than merely preparatory" (actus reus) and specific intent (mens rea).
  3. Impossibility is generally not a defence after R v Shivpuri.
  4. The "more than merely preparatory" test continues to change with judicial interpretation.
  5. Applying attempt law to diverse scenarios is vital for exam success.

Understand these principles and apply them to real-world cases to confidently tackle complex legal questions on the SQE1 FLK2 exam.