• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

In order to secure a conviction for an attempted crime the accused must be proved to have done an act which is "more than merely preparatory" to the intended offence. How satisfactory has this definition proved to be?

Extracts from this document...


A2 LAW - INCHOATE OFFENCES In order to secure a conviction for an attempted crime the accused must be proved to have done an act which is "more than merely preparatory" to the intended offence. How satisfactory has this definition proved to be? Inchoate offences are incomplete offences. The parties involved may have desired that a crime should go ahead, but circumstances beyond their control prevented this. Even though the crime did not go ahead, the law still takes the view that the people involved in these activities should be punished. These offences include attempts, conspiracy and incitement. Under the 1981 Criminal Attempts Act the actus reus of attempt will exist where the party 'does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence". Criminal intention is said to have progressed when the person does something that is substantial and with a closer connection to the crime in question. In Gullefer (1990) the defendant (D) placed a bet on a greyhound in a race. ...read more.


In attempting to do the impossible, the D can be convicted in both the practical and theoretical sense even though there is an absence of the actus reus. In Anderton v Ryan (1985) the D had received a videocassette believing it to be stolen. She was therefore charged with attempted handling although the object was not stolen. However, a year later in R v Shivpuri (1987) D was convicted of an attempt to be knowingly dealing with and harbouring a prohibited drug. Shivpuri admitted that he thought that the substance in his possession was a drug but on investigation, it turned out to be a harmless substance. His conviction was quashed on the grounds that the complete offence was impossible. A Law Commission report, which preceded the Criminal Attempts Act, considered the desirability of striking a balance between the protection of the public from the social danger caused by the contemplation of a crime and the individual freedom to think or even fantasise. A person ought not be punished for merely contemplating the commission of the offence. ...read more.


fact for the jury in each case to consider, using principles of common sense and that the older common law principles would not normally need to be considered in order for a jury to come to a conclusion about this. An ordinary juror may also find it difficult to determine when an attempt is said to have occurred, without some further guidance from the trial judge. This may lead to jury nobbling. This is where the jury is forced by the trial judge, the media etc into arriving at a particular verdict. As a result of this, the conviction may be quashed. In such cases as Campbell should the police wait until the victims' lives are put at risk before intervening? It might be too late for that! There are difficulties in defining at what precise point an attempt can be said to have occurred. Unless this is more clearly dealt with, the police will find it very hard to know when to arrest someone and when to wait until they have acted beyond mere preparation. This was the problem in Campbell. Kikelomo Akinyosoye ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    In order to decide whether or not trial by jury should or should not ...

    4 star(s)

    This type of decision is not limited to Political cases as the case of R v Owen10 Illustrates. To my mind the perverse decision is a strong argument on its own for the retention of the jury trial for two reasons.

  2. Criminal Law (Offences against the person) - revision notes

    R v Cocker (1989) - Terminally ill wife who repeatedly over a period of time asks him to kill her. Eventually he does due to her nagging. Cocker tried to claim the defence of provocation but judge rejects it saying it 'wasn't a sudden loss of self control' Jury say

  1. What is an indictable offence and how is it brought to trial?

    The defendant may give evidence on his own behalf. He is not obliged to do so, but if he does not do so the jury can draw inferences from that refusal, just as the magistrates can in a summary trial.

  2. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    holder in due course, the true owner will not lose his claim against such an endorsee. Thus an endorsee of such a crossed check must not accept the check unless he knows the endorser very well and is convinced about his having a good title thereto.

  1. Critically evaluate the changes which have been made since 1990 to the definition of ...

    to avoid committing a criminal offence?8 Commentators have argued that there is no reason to classify penetration in rape differently from how the concept of continuation was applied in the assault and battery case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner9 whereby the force applied to the constable's foot was considered

  2. The Inchoate (Incomplete) Offences - Essay Notes

    each D will be liable for conspiracy to commit only those crimes which he knows about & you don't need to know your conspirators Who can conspire - At least two people except where one is a spouse or aged under ten or intended victim - S2 CLA 1977 Impossibility

  1. Law and order in the American west.

    Source D also show the image that there was no official law enforcement present when bank raid were committed. It is useful to tell us about types of crimes. But it is not useful because it was what an artist pictured a bank raid to be in Northfield, Minnesota in

  2. The common law offence of Murder has witnessed a complicated development in its definition ...

    Firstly, direct intention whereby a defendant purposely undertakes to kill, or cause GBH, to the victim; or secondly, oblique intention where a defendant's state of mind is such as to realise the virtually certain consequences of their actions6. Direct intention, in most circumstances, is straight forward to find, in that there will be evidence, through behaviour or admittance e.g.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work