LAW

Published on
​KembaraXtra-Case Law- Stonehouse[1978]-Attempting to Obtain by Deception (Stonehouse, 1978)
This case study focuses on the legal concept of attempt in criminal law, specifically in the context of obtaining property by deception.
Case Name: Stonehouse (1978) HL D
Key Legal Issue: When does an accused person's actions constitute an "attempt" to commit a full offence, rather than mere preparation?
Facts of the Case:
  • Accused (D): Stonehouse
  • Offence Alleged: Attempting to obtain insurance money by deception.
  • Method: D insured his own life for his wife's benefit. He then faked his own death by drowning while overseas.
Trial Judge's Direction:
  • The trial judge directed the jury that D's conduct did amount to an attempt.
    • Crucial Point: This was a strong direction, essentially telling the jury they must find an attempt, rather than allowing them to consider if it could amount to an attempt. This raises questions about the judge's role and potential for overreach.
Outcome (Held by the House of Lords):
  • D's actions were sufficiently proximate to the complete offence of obtaining property by deception to be capable in law of amounting to an attempt.
    • This means the House of Lords affirmed that D's conduct could be considered an attempt, upholding the conviction.
Key Legal Principle/Test Established:
  • "Crossing the Rubicon and burnt his boats" (Lord Diplock): This famous metaphor illustrates the crucial threshold for an attempt. It signifies that the accused's actions must have gone beyond mere preparation and reached a point where they are unequivocally committed to the crime, with no turning back.
Application in Stonehouse:
  • Faking one's own death is considered a definitive act that "crosses the Rubicon" in the context of obtaining insurance money by deception. It is not merely preparatory (like buying insurance) but an intrinsic step towards the fraudulent claim.
Why is this case important for your studies?
  • Understanding "Attempt": Stonehouse is a foundational case for defining the line between preparation and attempt. It emphasizes the need for actions that are proximate to the completed offence.
  • The "Rubicon" Test: This metaphor is frequently cited and tested as the legal standard for attempt. You must understand what it signifies in practical terms.
  • Mens Rea and Actus Reus: The case highlights the interaction between the accused's intention (to deceive and obtain money) and their actions (faking death).
  • Judicial Direction: The initial trial judge's strong direction (that it did amount to an attempt) vs. the higher court's clarification (that it was capable of amounting to an attempt) is a subtle but important distinction regarding the role of the judge in instructing a jury on matters of law vs. fact.
To study this case effectively, consider these questions:
  1. What was the actus reus (guilty act) in Stonehouse that constituted the attempt?
  2. What was the mens rea (guilty mind) required for the attempted offence?
  3. How does Lord Diplock's "Rubicon" test help distinguish an attempt from mere preparation?
  4. Can you think of other scenarios where this test would be applied to determine if an attempt has occurred?
  5. Why is it important for the law to define "attempt" clearly?







Picture
0 Comments

Author

Learn the fact about law