- Published on
Kembaraxtra-Case Law-Haughton v. Smith (1975) HL: Attempted Handling of Stolen Goods
I. Case Summary
- Facts:
- Police found stolen goods in a van.
- Driver was allowed to proceed to a service station with police escort.
- The destination was where the goods were to be handed over to the defendant (D) and others.
- D was arrested upon arrival.
- Charge: Attempting to handle stolen goods.
II. Key Legal Principle: Mens Rea and Actus Reus in Attempts
- Abandonment as a Defense:
- Before Preparatory Act: If D changes their mind before committing any act that could amount to an attempt, they are not guilty.
- Reason: Lack of mens rea (guilty mind) at the relevant time.
- After Preparatory Act: If D changes their mind after committing an act that is not merely preparatory, they are guilty.
- Reason: No defense of abandonment once the attempt has begun (i.e., actus reus is established beyond preparatory steps).
III. Application to the Case
- The court's ruling implies that D's actions, by being present to receive the goods, had progressed beyond merely preparatory steps, thus establishing the actus reus for the attempt. Even if D had a change of heart at that moment, the attempt had already crystallized.
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Attempted Rape: Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1992)
Case Summary
- Case Name: Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1992) (1992) CA
- Facts: D, intoxicated, attempted to sexually assault a girl. He forced her to the ground, lay on top of her, lowered his trousers, and interfered with her private parts. He was unable to achieve penetration.
- Question for Court of Appeal: Does attempted rape require proof of attempted penile penetration of the vagina?
Ruling and Legal Principles
- Holding: The previous common law tests for the actus reus of attempts are irrelevant.
- Key Principle for Attempts: It is necessary to prove that the defendant "embarked on committing the crime itself."
- Application to Rape:
- Attempted rape does not necessarily require attempted or achieved penetration.
- "More than Merely Preparatory" Acts: Other actions can satisfy the actus reus for attempted rape.
- Examples from Case: Forcing the victim to the ground, lowering trousers, and interfering with private parts were sufficient for a jury to conclude that D's acts were "more than merely preparatory."
- Published on
Kembaraxtra-Case Law-Campbell (1991)
Facts
- D planned to rob a post office.
- He drove to the post office on a motorcycle.
- He walked towards the post office wearing a motorcycle helmet.
- He carried an imitation gun and a threatening note, intending to hand it to the cashier.
- D was arrested before he entered the post office.
- He was convicted of attempted robbery at trial.
Legal Principle Established
- Approval of Gullefer test: The court approved the Gullefer test as representing the true meaning of "attempt" under Section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
- Common law tests for attempt were deemed irrelevant.
Application to Campbell
- The court found D had not "embarked upon the crime proper."
- Reasons for acquittal:
- His weapon was an imitation.
- He made no attempt to remove the imitation weapon from his pocket.
- He was not wearing a disguise (though he wore a motorcycle helmet, this was not deemed a disguise for robbery purposes in this context).
- He had not entered the post office.
- Conclusion: D's acts were considered merely preparatory, not an attempt. Therefore, he was not guilty of attempted robbery.
Significance
- This case reinforces a strict interpretation of "attempt" under the 1981 Act, distinguishing between preparatory acts and those acts that are sufficiently proximate to the full offense.
- It highlights that even with clear intent and significant preparation, the physical act must go beyond mere preparation and be part of the execution of the crime itself.
- Published on
KembaraXtra- Case Law - Attempted Murder: Jones (1990) CA
Case Summary
- Defendant (D): Purchased and modified a shotgun (sawed off barrel, test-fired).
- Incident: D entered F's car, directed F to a secluded location, then produced the modified shotgun and pointed it at F.
- Key Detail: The safety catch on the shotgun was engaged.
- Outcome: F disarmed D by throwing the gun out the window and escaped.
Legal Principle: "More Than Merely Preparatory"
The court's decision in Jones (1990) clarifies the standard for determining whether an act constitutes an attempt, moving beyond mere preparation.
Key Holdings
- Not Last Act: "More than merely preparatory" does not require the defendant to have committed the absolute last act within their power to complete the offense.
- Proximity Required: There must be a sufficient proximity to the commission of the substantive offense.
- Remaining Acts Permissible: It is acceptable for some acts to still be left unperformed before the substantive offense could be completed.
Application to Jones (1990)
Despite the following acts remaining undone, D's actions were deemed "more than merely preparatory":
- Removing the gun's safety catch.
- Placing a finger on the trigger.
- Pulling the trigger.
Conclusion: D was correctly convicted of attempted murder due to the sufficiency of his performed acts.
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Attempted Theft: Gullefer (1987)
Case Summary
- Case Name: Gullefer (1987)
- Facts: The defendant (D) attempted to stop a greyhound race by climbing onto the track. His motive was to prevent his dog from losing and recover his bet. Stewards did not stop the race.
- Initial Conviction: D was convicted of attempted theft.
- Appeal Ground: D appealed, arguing his actions were merely preparatory.
Legal Principle: Actus Reus of Attempt
- Key Concept: For an attempt to be established, the defendant must have moved beyond "merely preparatory" acts and embarked upon the "crime proper."
- Lord Lane LCJ's Formulation: The actus reus of attempt is satisfied "when the merely preparatory acts come to an end and the defendant embarks upon the crime proper. When that is will depend, of course, upon the facts in any particular case."
- Application to Gullefer:
- Decision: D's actions of jumping onto the track were deemed merely preparatory.
- Reasoning: At that stage, D could not be said to be in the process of committing theft, nor had he committed acts more than merely preparatory to the offence.
- Outcome: D's appeal was successful; conviction for attempted theft quashed.
Important Takeaway
- The distinction between "merely preparatory" acts and "committing the crime proper" is crucial for establishing the actus reus of attempt.
- This distinction is highly fact-dependent.
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Nash (1999) CA
Case Summary
- Facts: Two letters addressed to "Paperboy," containing invitations for an indecent act, were found by children and given to police. A third letter, also addressed to "Paperboy," offered a job and requested a urine sample. Police arrested the defendant (D), searched his home, and found a typewriter matching the letter's typeface and another similar letter.
- Initial Conviction: D was convicted of attempting to procure an act of gross indecency.
- Appeal: D appealed the conviction.
Court of Appeal Decision
- Guidance Applied: The Court of Appeal followed precedent from Geddes.
- Letters 1 & 2: These letters contained an "overtly sexual invitation" and were deemed sufficient to constitute attempted procurement.
- Letter 3: This letter's invitation was "less unequivocal" and was not considered sufficient to amount to attempted procurement.
Key Legal Principle
- Attempted Procurement: For an invitation to constitute attempted procurement, it must be overtly sexual and unequivocal. Ambiguous or less direct invitations may not meet this threshold.
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Casw Law-Attempted Burglary: Tosti (1997) CA
Case Summary
- Defendant (D): Observed late at night examining a barn padlock.
- Actions:
- Examining the padlock.
- Fleeing upon being watched.
- Car found nearby with oxyacetylene equipment.
- Two other cars with warm engines found nearby.
- Charge: Attempted burglary.
- Appeal Outcome: Dismissed.
Key Legal Question
- Did D's actions (obtaining equipment, driving to scene, approaching barn, examining padlock) constitute acts "more than merely preparatory" and amount to acts "done in the commission of an offense"?
Legal Principle Applied
- Guidance from Geddes case: Used to assess whether actions are "more than merely preparatory."
- (Note: Specific details of Geddes guidance not detailed in this extract, but its application is key).
Court's Finding
- Sufficient evidence existed to demonstrate acts "more than merely preparatory."
- The question was appropriately left to the jury.
Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; conviction for attempted burglary upheld.
- Published on
.KembaraXtra- Case Law-Attempted Burglary: Tosti (1997) CA
Case Summary
Case Summary
- Defendant (D): Observed late at night examining a barn padlock.
- Observation & Flight: D ran off after noticing he was being watched.
- Evidence:
- D's car found nearby containing oxyacetylene equipment.
- Two other cars found parked nearby with warm engines.
- Initial Conviction: Attempted burglary.
- Appeal: D appealed the conviction.
- Core Question: Had D's actions (acquiring equipment, driving to scene, approaching barn, examining padlock) gone "beyond merely preparatory" acts and amounted to acts done in the commission of an offense?
- Guidance Applied: The court applied the guidance established in Geddes.
- Finding: Sufficient evidence existed to suggest acts were "more than merely preparatory."
- Jury's Role: This evidence warranted leaving the question of attempt to the jury.
- Outcome: Appeal dismissed.
- Definition: Actions that move beyond planning or setting up for a crime and directly initiate the commission of the offense itself.
- Context: Essential distinction in attempt cases to determine if a criminal act has begun, rather than just contemplation or preliminary steps.
- Application (Tosti): The combination of equipment, presence at the scene, and direct interaction with the target (examining the padlock) constituted acts beyond mere preparation.
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- Attempts: Geddes (1996) CA
Case Summary
Case Summary
- Defendant (D): Found in a school lavatory block with a rucksack, despite having no connection to the school.
- Rucksack Contents: Large kitchen knife, rope, masking tape.
- Additional Evidence: D's cider can found in a lavatory cubicle.
- Charge: Attempted false imprisonment.
- Outcome: Convicted by lower court.
- Held: Conviction quashed. D's actions were merely preparatory, not amounting to an attempt.
- Distinguishing Preparation vs. Attempt: The line is not clear or easy to recognize; no "rule of thumb" test.
- Case-by-Case Judgment: Each case requires an individual exercise of judgment based on the facts.
- "To ask whether the available evidence, if accepted, could show that a defendant had done an act which showed that he had actually tried to commit the offence in question, or whether he had only got ready or put himself in a position or equipped himself to do so."
- D's Intention: Little doubt regarding D's intention to commit false imprisonment.
- Preparatory Acts: D clearly made preparations and equipped himself (knife, rope, tape).
- Lack of Direct Action: D had not confronted or communicated with any pupil.
- Conclusion: His actions were "more than merely preparatory." He had not yet "actually tried to commit the offence."
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Case Law: Rowley (1992) CA
Facts
The defendant (D) left notes in public places offering incentives to young boys with the intention of attracting them for immoral purposes. However, the contents of the notes were not themselves indecent and merely sought to arrange contact with potential recipients. D was subsequently convicted of attempting to incite a child under the age of 14 to commit an act of gross indecency.
Issue
Whether the act of leaving notes in public places constituted an attempt to incite a child to commit an act of gross indecency, or whether the conduct was merely preparatory in nature.
Decision
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and overturned the conviction.
Reasoning
The court held that the notes did not go beyond seeking to arrange a preliminary meeting with the boys. No direct proposition or encouragement to commit an act of gross indecency was communicated by D. As such, the conduct amounted only to preparatory acts and did not constitute an attempt to incite the offence.
The court distinguished this situation from one where a defendant sends a letter expressly encouraging a child to engage in an act of gross indecency, but the letter fails to reach its intended recipient. In such circumstances, the defendant would have done everything within his power to communicate the incitement, thereby potentially satisfying the requirements of attempted incitement.
Legal Principle
For liability for attempted incitement to arise, the accused must have gone beyond mere preparation and taken acts that amount to a direct attempt to communicate the incitement. Conduct that merely facilitates the possibility of future contact or discussions, without conveying the unlawful proposition itself, remains insufficient to constitute an attempt.
Facts
The defendant (D) left notes in public places offering incentives to young boys with the intention of attracting them for immoral purposes. However, the contents of the notes were not themselves indecent and merely sought to arrange contact with potential recipients. D was subsequently convicted of attempting to incite a child under the age of 14 to commit an act of gross indecency.
Issue
Whether the act of leaving notes in public places constituted an attempt to incite a child to commit an act of gross indecency, or whether the conduct was merely preparatory in nature.
Decision
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and overturned the conviction.
Reasoning
The court held that the notes did not go beyond seeking to arrange a preliminary meeting with the boys. No direct proposition or encouragement to commit an act of gross indecency was communicated by D. As such, the conduct amounted only to preparatory acts and did not constitute an attempt to incite the offence.
The court distinguished this situation from one where a defendant sends a letter expressly encouraging a child to engage in an act of gross indecency, but the letter fails to reach its intended recipient. In such circumstances, the defendant would have done everything within his power to communicate the incitement, thereby potentially satisfying the requirements of attempted incitement.
Legal Principle
For liability for attempted incitement to arise, the accused must have gone beyond mere preparation and taken acts that amount to a direct attempt to communicate the incitement. Conduct that merely facilitates the possibility of future contact or discussions, without conveying the unlawful proposition itself, remains insufficient to constitute an attempt.