Ashworth 3rd edn. Ch 11.

Criminal Attempts Act, 1981

**Stonehouse [1978] AC 55; 41 MLR 215

Mens Rea

***Cawthorne v H. M. Advocate [1968] SC (JC) 32

Mohan [1976] QB 1

**Pigg [1982] Crim L R 446, 449 - 450

Pearman (1984) 80 Cr App R 259

**Millard and Vernon [1987] Crim L R 393

AG's Ref No 3 of 1992 (1994) 98 Cr AppR 383

Actus Reus?

*Comer v Broomfield (1970) 55 Cr App Rep 305

***Boyle and Boyle [1987] Crim L R 111

*Gullefer [1990] 3 All E R 882

*Jones [1990] Crim L R 800

AG's Ref No1 of 1992 [1993] Crim L R 274

Fallon [1994] Crim L R 519

*Geddes [1996] Crim L R 894

Tosti [1997] Crim L R 746


**Haughton v Smith [1975] AC 476; 37 MLR 329

Nock [1978] Crim L R 483; [1978] AC 979, 992A-993C

Anderton v Ryan [1984] Crim L R 483

****Shivpuri [1986] Crim L R 536


****CLRC 18th Report, "Conspiracy to Defraud"

1988 Crim L R 508

**1995 Crim L R 97-98

****1995 Crim L R 209-219; 1995 Crim L R 461-463;*1995 Crim L R 519-520

Sexual Offences Conspiracy and Incitement Act, 1996

**Criminal Law Act, 1977; see [1977] Crim L R 65

**Criminal Attempts Act, 1981, s.5

Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.12

*Shaw v DPP [1962] AC 220

*Knuller v DPP [1973] AC 435

Doot [1973] AC 807, **822H - 823A

**Scott [1975] AC 819

**Bennett (1979) 68 Cr App Rep 168

**Duncalf [1979] 2 All E R 1116

A.G.'s Ref. (No 1 of 1982) [1983] 2 All E R 721, esp **722-724

****Ayers [1984] 1 All E R 619

****Hollinshead [1985] 2 All E R 769

****Cooke [1987] Crim L R 114

*Siracusa [1989] Crim L R 713

Yip Chiu Chung [1994] Crim L R 824


Sexual Offences Conspiracy and Incitement Act, 1996

**McDonough (1962) 47 Cr App Rep 37

Invicta Plastics v Clare [1976] Crim L R 131

Hendrickson [1977] Crim L R 356

*Whitehouse [1977] QB 868; cf. Criminal Law Act, 1977, s. 54

****Fitzmaurice [1982] Crim L R 677; [1983] 1 All E R 189

**Sirat [1986] Crim L R 245

Marlow [1997] Crim L R 897

DPP v Armstrong [2000] Crim L R 379


What justification, if any, is there for punishing inchoate offences ?

In what ways, if any, has the Criminal Attempts Act, 1981 improved on the common law ?

Has the Conspiracy Law Act, 1977 (as amended in 1981) worked a satisfactory change in the law relating to conspiracy?


Two friends, a doctor, Darekil, and a philosophy tutor, Nozickness, after much discussion as to the virtues of euthanasia and suicide, agree to combine their talents to produce a booklet justifying on moral grounds mercy killing and self-destruction and providing detailed guidance on easy and painless modes of death with the intention of making the booklet freely available to any interested party. Indeed, some booklets are produced but before any are distributed, McCanny, a law tutor suggests that the project might be contrary to the criminal law. Concerned, Darekil and Nozickness now seek your advice.

Box and Cox agree to go together to an area where prostitutes are known to solicit in the streets in order to importune women to have sexual intercourse with them. To finance this venture Box agrees to divert the attention of the forecourt attendant at the local garage whilst Cox rifles the till. They are overheard and apprehended by the police when they arrive at the garage. Comment. What difference, if any, would it make if there was no money in the till?

A, B and C agreed together with D that D will for payment supply them with a quantity of cannabis, and a meeting to effect the exchange is arranged. The police hear of this and lie in wait in order to arrest all four in possession. However, it transpires that the 'cannabis' brought by D is (to his knowledge) harmless powder and (again to his knowledge) that he has never been in possession of any real cannabis. All four are jointly charged that 'they conspired together to contravene the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971'. Perhaps fearful of your forensic skill, the prosecution also bring charges of attempt against A, B and C. Discuss.