Study Guide 8- Incohate Offences

8/12/2019 Study Guide 8- Incohate Offences

1/10

Inchoate Offences

An inchoate offence is one which is incomplete with criminality lies in the steps taken to

bring about the completion of the substantive crime. Because of the social need to prevent

crimes before they occur, the common law has established three separate categories of

inchoate crimes Attempt Conspiracy Incitement to commit a crime

Note that there is no such offence as 'attempt', 'incitement', 'conspiracy' the crime must be

known.

Nature of the steps needed to be taken varies with each. With incitement the defendant must

have tried to persuade another person to commit a crime. With conspiracy the defendant and

at least one other person must have agreed to commit a crime. With attempt the defendant

must have tried to commit an offence and must have gotten relatively close to achieving that

objective. For all three it is necessary that the inchoate offence must be related to a

substantive offence.

AttemptThe best way to understand criminal attempt is think about failure. The law of attempt

therefore is seeking to nip the commission of the main offence in the offence. The elements

of attempt include

A specific intent to commit the substantive offenceIf A throws a brick at B and the brick misses and hits C, C dies as a result, what can A

be charged with?Assault was committed, so it cannot be 'attempted assault'. Assault is the

apprehension of fear.Not murder, that is a crime of specific intent.

A would be assault, the other manslaughter.

An overt act towards the commission of that offence Failure to consummate the substantive offence

The actus reus at common law to amount to commit an offence the defendant actions must be

immediately connected with or sufficiently approximately to the intended offence.

CASE: R v. Eagleton 6 (1855) Cox C.C. 559

[Attempts - actus reus, proximity test under common law]

The defendant was alleged to have attempted to obtain money from the guardians of a parish

by falsely pretending to the relieving officer that he had delivered loaves of bread of the

proper weight to the outdoor poor, when in fact the loaves were deficient in weight.

Parke B., delivering the judgment of the court of nine judges, said, at p. 538:

"Acts remotely leading towards the commission of the offence are not to be considered as

attempts to commit it. but acts immediately connected with it are; and if, in this case, after the


2/10

credit with the relieving officer for the fraudulent overcharge, any further stepon the part of

the defendant had been necessary to obtain payment, as the making out a further account or

producing the vouchers to the Board, we should have thought that the obtaining credit in

account with the relieving officer would not have been sufficiently proximate to obtaining the

money. But, on the statement in this case, no other act on the part of the defendant would

have been required. It was the last act, depending on himself, towards the payment of themoney. Not guilty

R v Geddes [1996] Crim LR 894

The defendant had been seen by a teacher in the boys' toilets of a school. He had no

connection with the school and no right to be there. He had a rucksack with him. A police

officer saw him and shouted at him, but he left. In a cubicle in the lavatory block there was a

cider can which had belonged to the defendant. His rucksack was found in some bushes,

containing a large kitchen knife, rope and a roll of masking tape. The defendant was arrestedand identified by the teacher and some pupils. He was charged with attempted false

imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the presence of the cider can showed that the

defendant had been inside a toilet cubicle, and that the contents of the rucksack could have

been used to catch and restrain a boy entering the lavatory. The defendant was convicted.

The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant's appeal. It held that the line of demarcation

between acts which were merely preparatory and acts which might amount to an attempt was

not always clear or easy to recognise. There was no rule of thumb test, and there must always

be an exercise of judgment based on the particular facts of the case. It was an accurate

paraphrase of the statutory test to ask whether the available evidence could show that a

defendant had done an act 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.

In the present case there was not much room for doubt about the defendant's intention, and

the evidence showed that he had made preparations, had equipped himself, had got ready, had

put himself in a position to commit the offence charged, but he had never had any contact or

communication with any pupil at the school. On the facts of the case the evidence was not

sufficient in law to support a finding that the defendant had done an act which was more than

merely preparatory to wrongfully imprisoning a person unknown.

(Refer to Eagleton for the last act test)

State v Parshram 1962 LRBG 482 --- Law report of British Guiana. In the UK and

Barbados and Belize the defendant must have performed an act which is more than just

preparatory. Must go on, must be more than the preparation.


3/10

CASE: R v Campbell (1991) 93 Cr App R 350

On October 20, 1988, the appellant was lurking about in the vicinity of this sub-Post Office.

He was on a motor cycle, sometimes riding along the road and sometimes walking around,

having parked the motor cycle not far away. He was dressed in the garb of a motor cyclist

a suit, crash helmet and gloves. At about 15 or 20 minutes before midday the watchingpolice officers saw the appellant walking towards the Post Office. He removed a pair of

sunglasses from his breast pocket. He put them on and then he was seen to put his hand into

the right thigh pocket of his motor cycle suit, it seemed that there was something heavy there.

He stopped walking when he was about 30 yards away from the Post Office, took off his

sunglasses and, after looking around for a while, he walked away from the Post Office.

About half an hour later the police officers again saw the appellant walking towards the Post

Office. He did not put his sunglasses on this occasion, nor did he reach into his right thigh

pocket. He was merely walking along the pavement on the same side of the road as the Post

Office going towards it. In front of the Post Office, as we are able to see for ourselves from a

photograph which the jury had before them, there is to the right of the single door leading

into the premisesa red post box. There is a space between that and the wall of the premisessufficiently wide for people to pass and re-pass. As the appellantcoming from right to left

in the photograph, was passing the post box the officers moved in. They grabbed hold of him

just as he passed the post box, he then being but a yard or so from the Post Office door. He

had upon him, when he was searched, an imitation firearm. He had the sunglasses earlier

referred to. He had a note upon which he had written, as he afterwards admitted, words

couched in the most vulgar terms and which were of a most threatening nature. His intention

it was said was to place that note under the grill on the counter of the Post Office so that it

could be seen by whoever was behind. He hoped, no doubt, upon seeing him, that note and

possibly the firearm, the person behind the counter would be so sufficiently frightened as to

hand over the money.

A number of acts remained undone and the series of acts which he had already

perfo rmed namely making his way from his home or other place where he

commenced to ride his motor cycle on a journey to a place near a Post Office,

dismounting from the cycle and walking towards the Post Office door were

clearly acts which were, in the judgment of this Court, indicative of mere

prepara tion , even if he was sti ll of a mind to rob the Post Office, of the

commission that is the offence of robbery. If a person, in circumstances such as

this, has not even gained the place where he could be in a position to carry out

the offence, it is extremely unlikely that it could ever be said that he had

perfo rmed an ac t which could proper ly be said to be an att empt.

The defendant planned to rob a post-office. He drove a motorbike to near the office, parked it

and approached, wearing a crash helmet. He was carrying an imitation gun and a

threatening note which he planned to pass to the cashier in the post office. He was walking

down the street and when one yard from the post office door, police, who had been tipped off,

grabbed the defendant and arrested him. He was convicted of attempted robbery and

appealed.

In allowing the appeal, Watkins LJ stated that in order to effect the robbery it would have

been quite impossible unless he entered the post office, gone to the counter and made some

kind of hostile act directed at whoever was behind the counter and in a position to hand himmoney. A number of acts remained undone and the series of acts which he had already


4/10

performed - namely, making his way from his home, dismounting from the cycle and walking

towards the post office door - were clearly acts which were indicative of mere preparation. If

a person, in circumstances such as this, has not even gained the place where he could be in a

position to carry out the offence, it is extremely unlikely that it could ever be said that he had

performed an act which could be properly said to be an attempt. (Note: The appropriate

charge would have been going equipped with intent to steal.)

CASE: R v Gullefer (1990) 91 Cr App R 356

On March 5, 1985, the appellant attended the Greyhound Racing Stadium at Romford.

During the last race, as the dogs rounded the final bend, he climbed the fence on to the track

in front of the dogs, waving his arms and attempting to distract them. His efforts were only

marginally successful, and the stewards decided that it was unnecessary to declare "no race."

Had they made such a declaration, by the rules the bookmakers would have been obliged to

repay the amount of his stake to any punter, but would not have been liable to pay any

winnings to those punters who would have been successful if the race had been valid?

"If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, 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."

R v White

At common law the test is the action on the part of the defendant must be sufficiently

proximate or immediate BUT in statute it's merely preparatory. (Beginning of a series of

events). SEE Davie v Lee 1967 2 All ER 423

There are at least a number of tests used in different jurisdictions to determine an act is

sufficiently proximity. One approach is to focus on the space and time to see whether or not

the accused did what can be considered the last act. Sometime however, the only required is

the one act and the last act principle may not always apply. In the proximity approach the

defendant's act will satisfy the test if it indicates beyond reasonable doubt the result which it

was intended to achieve. If D pulls a gun on V, the victim, can it be said that D intended to

kill V? The answer is no, because you cannot say D to commit murder, scare, or play a

joke. Because of variances this test had not found favour in many jurisdictions and some

jurisdiction move on to the test whether or not can be said by any reasonable person that the

actions of the accused can have no other purpose but the commission of a crime as in the case

of White.See R v Nash.

CASE: Stonehouse [1978] A.C. 55

[Attempts - actus reus, proximity test under common law]

D, a former government minister in England, insured his life for his wife's benefit. He then

faked his death by drowning overseas. D was convicted of attempting to obtain insurance

money by deception. Held: D's acts were proximate enough to the complete offence of

obtaining property by deception and therefore capable of amounting to an attempt.

D must have Crossed the Rubicon and burnt his boats". Guilty


5/10

For actus reus, must be able to show that the act in question was sufficiently connected with

the substantive event. Essentially punishing someone for their thoughts.

Mens Rea Requirement

All inchoate crimes are specific intent crimes. The mens rea of an attempt therefore is aspecific intention to commit the substantive offence. A could only be liable for attempting to

commit a substantive offence if he intended to commit that offence.

CASE: R v Mohan [1976] QB 1

Defendant responded to a police signal, but later accelerated towards the officer who jumped

out of the way to avoid being hit. The court held that though it was an attempt it was a

question of intention.

An intention to my mind, connotes a state of affairs which the party intending "-I will callhim X.-does more than merely contemplate. It connotes a state of affairs which, on the

contrary, he decides, so far as in him lies, to bring about, and which, in point of possibility, he

has a reasonable prospect of being able to bring about, by his own act of volition.

In Mohan, a constable signaled a driver to stop, and the driver drove directly at the constable

and the constable jumped out of the way. Charge was attempted assault occasionally bodily

harm. Had to prove that he INTENDED to cause bodily harm.Read AG ref #3 1994 2

All ER 121.

Khan (1990] 2 All E.R. 783

The defendant was charged with attempted rape. He did not in fact penetrate the girl, but he

did acts which were more than merely preparatory. The jury must have found that the girl did

not in fact consent to sexual intercourse. The trial judge directed the jury that it sufficed if

either the defendant knew the girl was not consenting or if he was reckless as to whether she

consented or not. He was convicted

What was missing in R v Khan was the act of sexual intercourse, without which the offencewas not complete

After a discotheque a 16-year-old girl accompanied five youths in a car to a house where

they were joined by other youths. Three youths raped her. The four defendants tried to do so

but failed. The defendants were charged with attempted rape and appealed. It was argued

that the judge misdirected the jury by telling them that, even if a defendant did not know the

girl was not consenting, he was guilty of attempted rape if he tried unsuccessfully to have

sexual intercourse, being reckless whether she consented or not - i.e., it was sufficient that he

could not care less whether she consented or not.

The Court of Appeal held that a man may commit the offence of attempted rape even thoughhe is reckless whether the woman consents to sexual intercourse since the attempt relates to


6/10

the physical activity and his mental state of recklessness relates, as in the offence of rape

itself, not to that activity but to the absence of the woman's consent. The appeals against

conviction were dismissed.

AG 's Reference (No. 3 of 1992) (1994)

The defendants threw a petrol bomb towards the victims, four of whom were inside their car

and two of whom were on the pavement outside. It passed over the car and smashed against a

nearby wall. The defendants' car then accelerated away. The defendants were charged with

attempted arson, being reckless whether life be endangered, contrary to s1(2) of the Criminal

Damage Act 1971. The trial judge ruled that, on a charge of attempt, intent to endanger life

was required; recklessness was not sufficient. The Attorney-General referred the issue to the

Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that on a charge of attempted aggravated arson, it was sufficient for

the Crown to establish a specific intent to cause damage by fire and that the defendant was

reckless as to whether life would thereby be endangered, because if the state of mind of thedefendant was that he intended to damage property and was reckless as to whether the life of

another would thereby be endangered, and while in that state of mind he did an act which was

more than merely preparatory to the offence, he was guilty of attempting to commit that

offence. It was not necessary that he intended that the lives of others would be endangered by

the damage which he intended

Conditional intent...whether that constitutes and offence.

ImpossibilitySometimes a person may intend to commit an offence and do everything they can possibly do

to commit it but the offence is impossible to commit.

At common law there will be no attempt if the crime id either factually or legally impossible

to commit. Haughton v Smith 1973 3 All ER . Five points to consider:

Where the defendant changes his mindHere if the change is sufficiently early, there will be no attempt.

The question will be whether the defendant crossed the threshold of changing his mind.

Langford.

If some outside agency prevented completion of the offence, the question will be thestage at which the interception took place?

Where the defendant is incompetent or his methods were inadequate. Intended crime was factually impossible, at common law, not liable Partinton v

Williams 120 SJ 80

The act was completed but there was no legal crime . (stealing from yourself)

CASE: Haughton v Smith [1975] AC 476

A van containing stolen goods was stopped by the police. It transpired that the van was

proceeding to Hertfordshire where the defendant was to make arrangements for the disposal

of the goods in the London area. In order to trap the defendant the van was allowed toproceed on its journey with policemen concealed inside. The van was met by the defendant


7/10

who began to play a prominent role in assisting in the disposal of the van and its load. Finally

the trap was sprung and the defendant was arrested. The prosecutor was of the opinion that,

once the police had taken charge of the van, the goods had been restored to lawful custody,

and were therefore, no longer stolen goods. Accordingly the defendant was not charged with

handling 'stolen goods', contrary to s22 Theft Act 1968, but with attempting to handle stolen

goods.

The House of Lords held that a person could only be convicted of an attempt to commit an

offence in circumstances where the steps taken by him in order to commit the offence, if

successfully accomplished, would have resulted in the commission of that offence. A person

who carried out certain acts in the erroneous belief that those acts constituted an offence

could not be convicted of an attempt to commit that offence because he had taken no steps

towards the commission of an offence. It followed that, since the goods which the defendant

had handled were not stolen goods, he could not be convicted of attempting to commit the

offence of handling stolen goods.

Anderson v Ryan [1985] AC 560

The defendant had bought a video recorder, but later confessed to the police that she believed

it to have been stolen property when she bought it. The defendant was charged withattempting to handle stolen goods, although the prosecution was unable to prove that the

video recorder had in fact been stolen property.

The House of Lords (by a majority of 4-1) quashed the defendant's conviction on the ground

that she could not be guilty of attempting to handle stolen goods unless such property was

shown to have existed. A majority of their Lordships refused to accept that the defendant's

belief that goods were stolen was sufficient of itself to result in liability. Such a result may

have been the aim of the 1981 Act but their Lordships felt that Parliament would have to

express its intentions more clearly before the courts would be willing to impose liability

solely on the basis of what the defendant had thought she was doing, as opposed to what she

was actually doing. End.

Following the criminal offences act UK, it is now possible to be guilty of an attempt to

commit the impossible. R v Shivpuri which set out the law as follows, a person can be

guilty of an attempt even if the commission of the full offence is impossible. Impossibility

does not negate liability; other aspect, there will no liability if the action in question will notresult in the commission of an offence in law. At common law if the factually impossible

then there no liability. R v Robinson 1915, r v walker 1990.

CASE: R v Shivpuri [1986] 2 WLR 988

The defendant was paid to act as a drugs courier. He was required to collect a package

containing drugs and to distribute its contents according to instructions which would be given

to him. On collecting the package the defendant was arrested by police officers, and he

confessed to them that he believed its contents to be either heroin or cannabis. An analysisrevealed the contents of the package not to be drugs, but a harmless vegetable substance. The


8/10


9/10

Who are the parties to an offence of conspiracy? In common law a husband and wife cannot

be charged with conspiracy, as they are considered as one. Mawji 1957 if however a third

party is present when the husband and wife are conspiracy, the protection is lost, R v

Whitehouse.

If A, the father, conspires with B, the son, who is 7 to steal the neighbor's chicken, there will

be no conspiracy with someone who cannot form the criminal intent. There also cannot beconspiracy where the other person (in the agreement) is the intended victim.

In terms of the mens rea the defendant must have intended to carry out the unlawful purpose

and must know of the facts which makes the purpose unlawful. It means therefore if based on

the facts known to the parties what they agreed to do was an unlawful act they cannot excuse

themselves because they had knowledge of the circumstances. If however, the facts known to

them led them to believe that what they agreed to do was lawful then will not be guilty.

Churchill v Walton 1967 2 AC 224, R v Sake 2006 UKHL 18.

-----------------

Conspiracy to defraud

Is not limited to agreement to commit the substantive offence. It is also not necessary to

show any deception of the person defrauded. Scott v MPC 1975 AC 819

Conspiracy to corrupt public morals or to outrage public decency

No legal definition. Shaw v DPP, R v Gibson 1991 1 All ER 439

Section 1 of the criminal act 1977, Haughton and Smith

Incitement

This is also a common law offence and it occurs when the incitement or solicitation is made.

The individual charged must have encouraged in some way usually in the form of solicitation

the commission of an unlawful act. It is not necessary to prove that there was effective what

matters is that his conduct amounted to solicitation. Incitement is therefore to encourage

another person to commit what would be an offence if the person carried it out. The act

incited must amount to a crime. R v Whitehouse

The actus reus is the act of persuading, encouraging, or threatening another to commit

another to commit a crime R v Shepard note that the incitement need not be directed at a

particular person and it takes many forms. The focus in every case should be the words used

by the accused or his conduct R v Goldman

In terms of mens rea it not the intent to commit a specific crime but rather the specific intent

to persuade someone else to commit a crime. It is important in every case to determine

whether or not the element of specific is present or whether the accused was speaking in jest

or making a casual comment. Note that recklessness may or may not be sufficient because

the courts have generally argued that the defendant must know or believe that person incited

has the mens rea for the offence in question R v Brown, Victor Plastics 1979note that ifthe person incited agrees to commit the crime then there would be another inchoate offence


10/10

known as conspiracy. If the person incited commits the crime in question the inciter will be

liable as an accomplice to the offence committed. DPP v Armstrongnote that if the person

incited cannot be guilty of the offence on the authority of Whitehouse, the core element of the

offense would not be satisfied, this brings the question of impossibility. They can be liable

for incitement to commit the impossible only if the commission of the crime was possible in

the time of the incitement R v Fiztmaurice [1983] QB 1083.

If however, the conduct incited would not be an offence if achieved, there would be no

incitement. The principle in Haughton therefore applies as it did in Whitehouse.

If the act incited did not amount to an offence there Is no incitement under the new law the

issue would be whether or not such an offence Is possible R v Pickford, R v Seerat

Invicta Plastics Ltd v Clare [1976] RTR 251. [Incitement = encouragement, urge, spur

on, persuasion or command of another to commit an offence]

D advertised for sale a police radar-alerting device that was unlawful to operate without a

licence, although it was not unlawful to own one.

Held: D was guilty of inciting an unlawful act, by persuading and inciting the use of the

device. The actus reus may be implied rather than express, incitement being determined by

looking at the acts taken 'as a whole'.

Guilty

R v Fitzmaurice [1983] QB 1083

[Incitement - D may escape liability if offence is impossible] D was asked by X to

organise a robbery of a woman. D, and others, did not know that X planned to obtain a

reward for reporting the robbery of a security van, which would arrive at the same time as the

fictional robbery.

Held:D was guilty of inciting a robbery because its commission ('robbing a woman at Bow')

was not impossible at the time of the incitement, regardless that it ended up being a charade.

Where an offence is de factoimpossible, D will not be liable for incitement to commit it.

Guilty

Study Guide 8- Incohate Offences

Documents

Transcript of Study Guide 8- Incohate Offences