- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- Millard & Vernon [1987] CA-Attempted Property Damage
This case clarifies the mens rea (guilty mind) required for the offence of attempt to commit a substantive crime, particularly when the substantive crime itself has a complex mens rea structure.
Key Concepts
Factual Background (Millard & Vernon (1987) CA)
Legal Principle (Holding)
The Court of Appeal established a distinction regarding the mens rea for attempt based on the structure of the substantive offence:
Key Takeaway for Studying Attempts
Practical Application Questions
This case clarifies the mens rea (guilty mind) required for the offence of attempt to commit a substantive crime, particularly when the substantive crime itself has a complex mens rea structure.
Key Concepts
- Attempt: An inchoate (incomplete) offence where a person, with the intent to commit a crime, performs an act that is more than merely preparatory to its commission.
- Substantive Offence: The full, completed crime (e.g., criminal damage).
- Actus Reus: The physical act or omission that constitutes a crime.
- Mens Rea: The mental element of a crime, encompassing intent, knowledge, recklessness, etc.
Factual Background (Millard & Vernon (1987) CA)
- Defendants: Football supporters.
- Actions: Repeatedly pushed against a wooden wall in a football stand.
- Prosecution Allegation: They were attempting to break the wall.
- Defence: Denied intent to break the wall.
Legal Principle (Holding)
The Court of Appeal established a distinction regarding the mens rea for attempt based on the structure of the substantive offence:
- Simple Substantive Offence:
- Structure: Consists of an actus reus leading to a result, with a mens rea relating only to that result.
- Mens Rea for Attempt: For an attempt to commit this type of offence, full intent is required regarding the result.
- Example (from this case's implication): If the substantive offence of criminal damage only required intent to cause damage, then for attempted criminal damage, you'd need intent to cause damage.
- Complex Substantive Offence:
- Structure: Consists of a mens rea relating to the result, AND a mens rea relating to "some other circumstance" (i.e., not the direct result).
- Mens Rea for Attempt: For an attempt to commit this type of offence, recklessness will suffice as the mens rea relating to the "other circumstance." Full intent is still required for the result.
- Application to Millard & Vernon: The substantive offence of criminal damage (s.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971) requires:
- Intent or recklessness as to causing damage to property belonging to another.
- The "other circumstance" here is that the property "belongs to another."
- Therefore, for attempted criminal damage, while you need intent to cause damage, you only need to be reckless as to whether the property belongs to another.
Key Takeaway for Studying Attempts
- When analyzing an attempt charge, always first identify the mens rea requirements of the substantive offence.
- Then, apply the Millard & Vernon principle:
- For the intended result of the substantive offence, you generally need intent for the attempt.
- For any other circumstances that form part of the substantive offence's mens rea (e.g., the property belonging to another, or knowledge that the victim was a police officer), recklessness can suffice for the attempt.
Practical Application Questions
- If the substantive offence is battery (applying unlawful force), which requires intent or recklessness as to applying unlawful force. What mens rea would be required for attempted battery?
- If a defendant throws a rock at a window, intending to break it, but misses. Would they be liable for attempted criminal damage, assuming they were reckless as to the property belonging to another?
- Why is the distinction between "result" and "other circumstance" crucial in Millard & Vernon?
0 Comments