The Inchoate (Incomplete) Offences - Essay Notes
Extracts from this document...
The Inchoate (Incomplete) Offences Include: - Conspiracy - Incitement - Attempt CONSPIRACY - An agreement between at least 2 people to commit an unlawful act, or a lawful act unlawfully - You cannot withdraw from conspiracy and cannot use withdrawal as a defence because the Actus Reus is already done - 3 types existed in common law: to commit any crime, to defraud, to corrupt public morals or outrage public decency - CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1977 (amended by CRIMINAL AATEMPTS ACT 1981) replaced most of the common law so that any conspiracy that amounts to a criminal offence is not statutory conspiracy - CRIMINAL LAW ACT abolished common law conspiracy with exceptions of conspiracy to defraud, or to corrupt public morals or outrage public decency Actus Reus: the reaching of an agreement Mens Rea: - S1 (2) CLA 1977 requires that D & another must have known or intended that the circumstances for the substantive act would come about & S1 (1) that they intended the agreement to be carried out - R v EDWARDS (1991) - Accused agreed to supply amphetamine but appeared to have intended to supply a different drug, ephedrine which was not a controlled drug. According to COA the judge had rightly directed the jury that they could convict of conspiracy to supply amphetamine if it was proved he had agreed to supply amphetamine and he intended to supply that drug - merely agreeing with no intention of actually supplying the controlled substance was not enough. ...read more.
Fitzmaurice's father had asked him to recruit people to commit a robbery near a bank in Bow, on a woman whom he said would be carrying a lot of money. He found 1 person, who recruited 2 other and the put, all 3 in touch with his father. Unknown to Fitzmaurice, his father had no intention of bringing about the crime he had discovered, and in fact planned to claim reward money by reporting his son's activities to the police. Fitzmaurice was convicted of incitement to rob, and COA upheld his conviction because the incitement was in general terms & the offence of robbery was not impossible to carry out - even if the men could not rob the particular woman whom Fitzmaurice's father appeared to have in mind, the could have robbed someone else coming out of the bank. Mens Rea: intention that end result of the crime should occur & knowledge of, or wilful blindness to, the circumstances which make act illegal - DPP v ARMSTRONG (2000) - had asked another man to supply him with pornography involving girls not younger than 12 years. Unknown to him the man he had asked to supply the pornography was a police officer, and D was charged with inciting a person to distribute indecent photographs of children. At first instance the magistrates found that the police officer had no intention of supplying the respondent with child pornography and following R v CURR, concluded that D was not guilty of incitement. ...read more.
His convicted for attempted robbery was quashed because, it was held that here was no evidence on which a jury could safely find that his acts were more than merely preparatory to committing the offence. - GEDDES (1996) - Accused had entered some school premises including boys' toilets. On being discovered he ran away discarding a rucksack which was found to contain a rope, masking tape and a large kitchen knife. He was charged with attempted false imprisonment and the trial judge ruled that there was a case fit for the jury's consideration. Accused was convicted but appeal was allowed. Where there was no doubt about the appellant's intention, there was no evidence of the Actus Reus of the offence. Evidence showed that he had made preparation, got himself ready & put himself in a position to commit the offence of false imprisonment, but he had not made contact with any pupil. He had not moved from the role of preparation and planning into the area of execution or implementation. - TOSTI & WHITE CA 1997 - Driving to the scene of the crime, concealing equipment for burglary & examining locks held "essentially the first steps in the commission of the crime") - There does not need to be "one last preparatory act" - AG's REF No 1 of 1992 - and judges should be wary of directing jury too rigidly Impossibility & attempt - if offence is impossible a charge of attempt can still succeed - SHIVPURI - if D intended the offence and did more than merely preparatory, he maybe convicted Sentence: max is same as for the same offence ...read more.
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
- Join over 1.2 million students every month
- Accelerate your learning by 29%
- Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month