Attempts

DPP v Stonehouse [1978] AC 55. Facts: AwasaBritishpoliticianinseriousfinancialdifficulties,sofakedhisdeathasdrowninginFloridaandmovedtoAustralia undernewidentity Gaveallinsurancetohiswife(whowasunaware),butthenwasdiscovered Chargedofattemptingtoobtainpropertybydeceptionappealed LegalReasoning: LordEdmundDavies Arguedthatonlyapreparation,notanattemptnotenoughproximity Wantedtoprovideforhiswifefaultelementsatisfied RvEagletonAnattempttocommitacrimeisanactdonewithintenttocommitthatcrime,andformingpartofa seriesofacts,whichwouldconstituteitsactualcommissionifitwerenotinterrupted. Heresubmittedthatthecrimewascapableofbeingcommitted,andAhadperformedactsshowinghimtryingtocommit thecrime Howeverjustdoinglastactnecessaryisnotenoughmusthavebeenmorethanpreparation Herethefakingofthedeathintendedtoproducetheresultoftheinsurance,andwasthefinalactthatcouldbe performedbyA,andwentasubstantialdistancetowardstheattainmentofAsgoalthereforesufficientlyproximateto thecommittingoftheoffence Criminalnohopers Facts: AbelievedandintendedtobringcannabisintoAustralia,butinfactbroughtanothersubstancewhichwasnotprohibited WaschargedwithattemptingtoimportprohibitedimportsintoAustralia LegalReasoning: MurphyJ Intentisthefocustheactitselfmaybeinnocuous Rationaleofcrimeofattemptistodeterorneutralisedangerousindividualswithcriminalintention Manycaseshaveconsideredthatattemptiswhenacrimeisinterrupted,butwouldhavebeenexecutedbutforthe interruption Thisisnotnecessaryjustneedintentandsufficientproximityoftheacts(objectiveinnocenceisirrelevant) Impossibility of the crime being committed, unless the crime is not recognised, is irrelevant

Britten v Alpogut [1987] VR 92.

R v Evans (1987) 30 A Crim R 262. R v Knight (1992) 109 ALR. 225. R v Gullefer [1990] 1 WLR 1063 (CA). The first of these is R v Gullefer [1990] 1 WLR 1063. The appellant had climbed onto the fence of a greyhound racing track at Romford in front of the dogs and waved his arms in an attempt to distract them. His intention was to try and have the race declared no race so he could recover a bet of 18 which he had placed with a bookmaker. He was convicted by the jury of attempted theft of the 18 and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that it could not properly be said that his actions at that stage were in the process of committing the theft. They had not gone beyond mere preparation. Applying the words of the Act of1981 Lord Lane LCJ at 1065C said: Was the appellant still in the stage of preparation to commit the substantive offence, or was there a basis of fact which would entitle the jury to say that he had embarked on the theft itself? He goes on to discuss the divergent authorities which existed before the 1981 Act. He took the view that the 1981 Act had not adopted the test postulated in Reg v Eagleton (1854) 5 Dears C.C. 515 but rather gave guidance as to Page 1 of 3

Attempts
the interpretation of a passage in Stephens Digest of the Criminal Law, 5 Edition 1894, Article 50: An attempt to commit a crime is an act done with intent to commit that crime, and forming part of the series of acts which would constitute its actual commission if they were not interrupted. R v Jones [1990] 1 WLR 1057. Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1992) [1993] 2 All ER 190. R v Eagleton (1885) Dears CC 515. R v Linnekner [1906] 2 KB 99. R v Robinson [1915] 2 KB 342. Hope v Brown [1954] 1 All ER 330. R v White [1910] 2 KB 124. To establish causation in fact, the "But for" Test established in R v White [1910] 2 KB 124 must be applied. It must be proved that, but for the defendant's acts, the death of the victim would not have occurred:
th

R v White [1910] 2 KB 124. The defendant placed poison in a glass containing his mother's drink. She drank the contents of the glass, but died of heart failure before the poison could take effect. The defendant was charged with murder but convicted of attempted murder. With regard to causation in fact, the defendant's act in placing poison in his mother's drink did not in any way cause her death. If one were to ask, "But for the defendant's act would his mother have died?", the answer would obviously have to be yes; she would have died anyway, thus disproving causation in fact. R v Page [1933] VLR 351. Note that an accused may still be guilty of attempt even if he/she voluntarily desists before the intended crime is carried out, as long as his/her conduct is more than merely preparatory, etc: R v Page [1933] VLR 351. R v Smith [1975] AC 476. R v Shivpuri [1986] 2 WLR 988. In Shivpuri the defendant was charged with importing heroin; a suitcase had been sent from <ST1:COUNTRYREGIoN w:st="on">India</ST1:COUNTRY-REGIoN> which the defendant believed contained heroin or cannabis. Analysis revealed that the substance was in fact harmless vegetable matter. The House held that the actus reus of the offence of attempt required an act which was more than merely preparatory to the commission of offence and which the defendant did with the intention of committing an offence, notwithstanding the commission of the actual offence was on the true facts impossible, which overruled Anderton v Ryan (1985) (In short, it is no defence to a charge of attempt that the substantive offence is actually impossible to commit) The House of Lords in Shivpuri made it clear that the only kind of impossibility which is relevant to liability is true legal impossibility. Even if the facts were such as the accused believed them to be, then the defendant would still not be committing any offence, having made a mistake about what the law was. If the defendant for example, believed it was an offence to import snuff and does import it, s/he does not commit the offence of attempting to supply a controlled drug, as the importation of snuff is not a crime. Anderton v Ryan [1985] AC 560. R v Mohan [1976] QB 1. Page 2 of 3

Attempts
R v Pepper (2007) 16 VR 637.

Page 3 of 3