RECAP: STRICT LIABILITY

1. Principle in Sweet v Parsley?

2. Name 2 cases on absolute liability.
3. What was the penalty in Alphacell?
4. Principle in Callow v Tillstone?
5. Case on underage gambling?
6. What does quasi-criminal or regulatory mean?
7. What is the defence of due diligence?
8. Principle in R v Blake?
9. List 3 types of offences covered by SL.
10. Principle in Pharmaceutical Society of GB v
Storkwain?
CRIMINAL LAW Preliminary offences:
Attempts
INTRODUCTION TO ATTEMPTS

 video clip
WHAT IS AN ATTEMPT?
 An attempt is where a person tries to
commit an offence but fails to
complete it.

R v White (1910)
D put cyanide in his mother’s tea,
intending to kill her. She dies of an
unrelated heart attack before she had
drunk it all.
He tried to commit murder but did not
actually kill his mother. He was guilty of
attempted murder.
 ATTEMPTS AT COMMON LAW

 Before the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, there used to be

several confusing tests about when acts became an
attempt. Such as:

1. The series of acts test

2. The last act test
3. The Rubicon test
THE ATTEMPTS ACT 1981

S.1(1)

'If, with intent to commit an

offence … 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.‘
 ACTUS REUS OF ATTEMPT

‘More than
merely
preparatory’.
Gullefer (1987)
D climbed onto a greyhound racetrack
in an attempt to stop a race.
D not guilty of attempted theft of his
stake because at the stage he jumped
on to the track, he could not be said to
be in the process of committing theft
and had not committed acts which were
more than merely preparatory to the
offence of theft.
Lane LCJ said that the actus reus of
attempt is satisfied when D ‘embarks
upon the crime proper’. This is slightly
clearer than the MMP test.
Boyle and Boyle (1987)
Ds were caught outside a house
trying to break in, they already had
one hinge broken on the front
door, police caught them and were
charged with attempted burglary,
they were found guilty because
they were caught in the act of
breaking in,
Using the Gullefer test it was clear
they had 'embarked' upon the
crime proper, this was beyond the
point of preparation.
This case seems fair, because by
breaking the hinge, they had
clearly gone beyond preparation.
Tosti and White (1997)
The D’s were seen examining a
padlock on a barn. When they
were disturbed, they ran away.
They left their cutting
equipment in a hedge. Ds were
guilty of attempting to burgle a
barn.

The jury found the Ds acts were

more than merely preparatory.
Although they had done less
than the Ds in Boyle and Boyle.
Jones (1990)
D bought a gun,
shortened the barrel,
found the V in his car,
got in and pointed the
gun to his head.
All of the acts were
preparatory until the
point when he got in
the car.
Campbell (1991)
D planned to rob a post office. He drove
to the post office on a motorcycle,
walked towards the post office wearing a
motorcycle helmet. D carried an
imitation gun and had a threatening note
in his pocket, which he planned to hand
over to the cashier. D was arrested
before he entered the post office.
Held: D had not 'embarked on the crime
proper', because he had not entered the
post office, he had not attempted to
remove the imitation firearm, he was not
wearing a disguise, and his acts were
"merely preparatory".
Geddes 1996
D was found with all his gathered necessary
supplies hiding in a toilet lying in wait for a child
whom he could falsely imprison.
COA ruled that hiding in children’s toilets with
kidnapping equipment was no more than simple
preparation. It did not qualify as “more than
merely preparatory” and was seen as not yet
implementing the plan.

 This seems wrong – D had to touch a child

before he could be convicted!
 Problem with the ‘more than merely
preparatory’ test
 Law Commission has heavily criticised this case.
ATTEMPTING THE
IMPOSSIBLE

Before CAA 1981

 If the crime was impossible to commit, then there is no
offence. For example, the D enters the V’s room and goes to
stab him in bed but the V had died of a heart attack two
hours earlier.

After CAA 1981

 It is possible to be guilty of attempting the impossible.
CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS ACT 1981 S.1
(2)

“a person may be guilty

of attempting to commit
an offence to which this
section applies even
though the facts are
such that the
commission of the
offence is impossible.”
Anderton v Ryan (1985)
D bought a video recorder believing
it to be stolen when it was not. D not
guilty of attempting to handle stolen
goods.

HOL found D not guilty because the

recorder was not actually stolen and
they did not want to prosecute for
what she thought she was doing,
rather than what she was actually
doing.

Overruled in R v Shivpuri
Shivpuri (1987)
D attempted to deal and harbour
drugs. He believed he might be
dealing with a prohibited drug such
as cannabis or heroin whereas in
fact the substance was harmless
powdered vegetable matter, snuff or
cabbage. D was held to be guilty.

HOL overruled its previous decision

in Anderton v Ryan. A D can be guilty
of attempting the impossible.
Whybrow
D built an electric device to give an
electric shock to his wife when she
took a bath. D not guilty of attempted
murder.
Only intent to kill suffices for
attempted murder.

 This sets a substantially higher

burden of proof for the mens rea of
attempted murder.
 It prevents anyone liable for
attempted GBH or GBH with intent
automatically becoming liable for
attempted murder.
 RECAP ATTEMPTS
1. What Act of Parliament defines attempts?
2. What is the AR of attempts?
3. Principle in Gullefer?
4. Principle in Boyle and Boyle?
5. Principle in Tosti and White?
6. Principle in Jones?
7. Principle in Campbell?
8. Principle in Geddes?
9. Principle in Shivpuri?
10. Principle in Whybrow?
 ATTEMPTS SUMMARY
Criminal Attempts Act s.1 (1) defines attempts.

AR is that D must do something which is ‘more than merely preparatory’ to the
commission of an offence
Gullefer – ‘embarked on the crime proper’
Boyle and Boyle
Tosti and White
Jones
Campbell
Geddes
D can attempt the impossible – s. 1(2)
White
Anderton v Ryan
Shivpuri

MR is intention to commit the offence

Whybrow – attempted murder needs intention to kill
MINI-SCENARIOS ON ATTEMPTS

 Checklist to think
about for each:

 Have they done

something MMP?
 Was it
impossible?
 Did they have
intention?
 APPLYING THE LAW ON ATTEMPTS
I – Identify
D (use their name) might be liable for attempted ………… when he………..

D – Define
Attempts are defined under CAA 1981 s.1(1): The AR of an attempt is:
………….. and the MR of an attempt is …………

E – Explain
AR cases; MR cases

A – Apply
Apply the law to the scenario – say whether your D meets the AR (and
how you know this) and whether your D meets the MR (and how you
know this). Conclude with the likely outcome.
EXAMPLE ATTEMPTS SCENARIO
Lucy decided to poison Liam, she bought
some Cyanide from Amazon and put a big
dose into a lasagne that she has made for
him. When Liam arrives home from work,
she wimps out, and throws the lasagne
away.
A week later, Lucy decides to try again. She
buys what she thinks is poison from Kate
Flatley, but they are actually smarties. She
dissolves the Smarties into his tea, and gives
him the cup.
Advise whether Lucy is criminally liable for
the attempted murder of Liam. (25)
I – Lucy might be liable for the attempted murder of Liam in relation to the Cyanide
and the Smarties. (1)
D – AR: D must do an act which is ‘more than merely preparatory’ to the
commission of an offence. (1)
MR: D must have the intent to commit the offence. (s.1(1)). (1)
E –AR must be MMP. (1)
Gullefer - D must have ‘embarked upon the crime proper.’ (1)
 Boyle and Boyle; (1)
Tosti and White (1)
Jones (1)
Campbell (1)
Geddes (1)
It is possible to attempt to commit the impossible (White; s. 1(2)). (1)
This was confirmed in Shivpuri which overruled Anderton v Ryan. (1)
The MR of attempted murder intent to kill (Whybrow). (1)
A –Lucy poisons the lasagne - possibly meets the AR because she has embarked on
the crime proper (Gullefer), (1)
Throws lasagne away - more likely this is just mere preparation. Although she has
intention to kill, there is no crime at this point (1)
Dissolves smarties tea - MMP and she has embarked on the crime proper. (1)
Can’t kill with smarties - won’t matter since it is possible to attempt the impossible
(White; Shivpuri; s. 1(2)). (1)
Lucy clearly intends to kill (Whybrow). (1)
Therefore, Lucy is guilty of the attempted murder of Liam. (1)
CASE TEST – STATE THE PRINCIPLE

1. Pretty v UK 12. Larsonneur

2. Gullefer 13.Hill v Baxter
3. Latimer 14.Miller
4. Sweet v Parsley 15.Fagan v MPC
5. Dytham 16.Cheshire
6. Shivpuri 17.Mitchell
7. Thabo Meli 18.Roberts
8. Alder Hey v Evans 19.Blaue
9. Nedrick 20.R v G and R
10.Alphacell 21.Mohan
11.Whybrow 22.Blake
ATTEMPTS SCENARIO
Shona, aged 14, lives with her father, Tyrone. Shona’s
boyfriend, Gary, leaves her for another girl. Shona
tells Tyrone that it is his fault. Tyrone is so angry he
locks Shona in her room and does not feed her.
Tyrone goes to Gary’s house, and beats him up so
badly that he thinks he has killed him. Gary recovers.
Tyrone keeps Shona in her room and when she asks
for food he refuses. A week later Tyrone discovers
that Gary isn’t dead. Tyrone breaks into Gary’s house
in the middle of the night and finds a man asleep
face down on the sofa. Tyrone stabs the man several
times. The police are called and find the man dead. It
is not Gary, but his brother Raymond. The police go
to Tyrone’s house and they find Shona dead in her
room.
Advise whether Tyrone is criminally liable for the
attempted murder of Gary. (25)
I –Tyrone might be liable for the attempted murder of Gary when he beats him yp,
and stabs Raymond. (1)
D – AR: D must do an act which is ‘more than merely preparatory’ to the commission
of an offence. (1)
MR: D must have the intent to commit the offence. (s.1(1)). (1)
E –AR must be MMP. (1)
Gullefer - D must have ‘embarked upon the crime proper.’ (1)
 Boyle and Boyle; (1)
Tosti and White (1)
Jones (1)
Campbell (1)
Geddes (1)
It is possible to attempt to commit the impossible (s. 1(2) White; ). (2)
This was confirmed in Shivpuri which overruled Anderton v Ryan. (2)
The MR of attempted murder intent to kill (Whybrow). (1)
A –Tyrone beats Gary up - meets AR because he has embarked on the crime proper
(Gullefer), (1)
Tyrone might not meet the MR of intention to kill (Whybrow) at this point, so no
attempt here. (1)
Tyrone stabs Raymond thinking it is Gary – stabbing is MMP and he clearly has
intention to kill at this point. (2)
It will not matter that it was actually impossible to kill Gary because Raymond was on
the sofa - since it is possible to attempt the impossible (White; Shivpuri; s. 1(2)). (3)
Therefore, Tyrone is guilty of the attempted murder of Gary. (1)
ISSUES WITH THE LAW ON
ATTEMPTS
 ESSAY

‘The Criminal Attempts Act 1981 makes it

difficult to distinguish between a person who is
merely preparing to commit a criminal offence
and one who has put their plan into effect.’
Discuss the extent to which this statement is
accurate. (25)
 ATTEMPTS ESSAY
A01 A03
Criminal Attempts Act s.1 (1) • CAA 1981 ‘attempted' to improve CL
AR - MMP tests
Gullefer • ‘embarked upon the crime proper.’
Boyle and Boyle • MMP = vague
Jones • Boyle and Boyle/Tosti and White
• Campbell/Jones – confrontation
Campbell • Geddes
Geddes • Law Com 2009 consultation paper
Tosti and White • Improved the law on impossibility.
D can attempt the impossible – s. 1(2) • Anderton v Ryan overruled in Shivpuri
White • Whybrow - higher MR
Anderton v Ryan • Law Com propose two offences of
Shivpuri attempt and ‘criminal preparation’ for
MR – Intention to commit the offence people whose preparation. This would
improve the law.
Whybrow
ATTEMPTS TEST
1. Name the Act which defines attempts
2. What is the AR of an attempt?
3. What is the MR of an attempt?
4. Principle in Gullefer?
5. Principle in Campbell?
6. Which case has been heavily criticised by the
Law Commission?
7. Principle in Whybrow?
8. What was the decision in Anderton v Ryan
and was it correct?
9. Principle in R v Shivpuri?
10. Why is the MR for attempted murder
strange?
TIMED IDEA – 15 MINS!

Maria finds out that her

husband Steve is having an
affair. Maria puts poison in
Steve’s spaghetti, but then
panics and throws it away. The
next day, Maria puts some rat
poison into Steve’s coffee, but it
has no effect.

Discuss Maria’s criminal liability.

I –Maria might be liable for the attempted murder of Steve. (1)
D – AR: D must do an act which is ‘more than merely preparatory’ to the
commission of an offence. (1)
MR: D must have the intent to commit the offence. (s.1(1)). (1)
E –
Gullefer, Lord Lane stated D must have ‘embarked upon the crime proper.’ (1)
Boyle and Boyle and Tosti and White (1)
Jones (1)
Campbell (1)
 Geddes (1)
Attempting to commit the impossible (s. 1(2)). (1)
This was confirmed in Shivpuri which overruled Anderton v Ryan. (1)
The MR of attempted murder intent to kill (Whybrow).
A –
Maria poisons the spaghetti - possibly meets the AR because she has embarked on
the crime proper (Gullefer), (1)
however, she throws the spaghetti away, so it is more likely this is just mere
preparation at this point. Although she has intention to kill, there is no crime at this
point (1)
Maria then puts poison in Steve’s tea. This is MMP and she has embarked on the
crime proper. It will not matter that it has no effect, since it is possible to attempt the
impossible (White; Shivpuri; s. 1(2)). (1)
Maria intends to kill (Whybrow). (1)
Therefore, Maria is guilty of the attempted murder of Steve. (1)
 ATTEMPTS TOPIC REVISION
Criminal Attempts Act section ……………………….
Actus reus of  
attempt  
Mens rea of  
attempt  
Cases on the actus reus – embarking on the crime proper
   
   
   
   
   
   
Case on the mens rea
   
Attempting the impossible section …………………………….