Murder and Attempted Murder

Part B Question on Murder and Attempted Murder

There has been an attempted murder committed as Tanya tried to cause the unlawful death of Bob, with full intention to bring about the consequence. However she failed, so she could be criminally liable for attempted murder; section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act (1981) says that if, with intent, a person commits and act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the full offence, then they’re to be guilty to attempting the offence.

The actus reus to commit and attempt is ‘an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the full offence’; it must also be a positive act and not an omission. An act being ‘more than merely preparatory’ means that the defendant must go past the stage of planning and embark on ‘the crime proper’; this was found in R v Gullefer (1987), where the defendant was found not guilty of the attempt because he had not gotten past planning the full offence. Also in R v Campbell (1990), the defendant intended on robbing a bank, but the police stopped him before he entered the bank; the courts held that at this point he had not yet gotten to the point of committing the full offence. It is not a necessity for the defendant to reach the final act in order to fulfil the criteria for an attempt; in AG’s Reference (No. 1 of 1992) (1993), although the defendant had dragged the potential victim into a shed, to rape her, he attempted it but could not complete the offence. It was held that despite not performing the final act, getting past the point of mere preparation was sufficient.

Intention is usually the key level of mens rea for an attempt, recklessness is usually insufficient. AG’s Reference (No. 3 of 1992) (1994) found that, a man who threw a petrol bomb at a car but missed, needed intention to damage property but could also be reckless as to the endangerment of life; in this case recklessness was sufficient. In R v Whybrow (1951) it was found that there need to...