Introduction
The Criminal Attempts Act 1981 set out the offense of trying to commit a crime. This law introduced a clear system for charging individuals who, without finishing a crime, showed a definite plan and took clear steps toward carrying it out. The Act’s main aim is on the idea of actus reus, the physical act, moving past planning and into direct steps toward the crime. This involves looking at the specific actions taken by the accused and judging how near they were to finishing the crime. Additionally, the mens rea, the mental state, requires showing the aim to commit the full offense. The 1981 Act gives a precise legal outline of “attempt” needed for proper use in criminal trials.
Section 1 of the 1981 Act: Defining "Attempt"
Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 states: “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.” This statement sets out two required parts for proving an attempt: the mens rea (intent) and the actus reus (an act beyond planning).
The Mens Rea of Attempt: Intent to Commit the Full Offence
The mens rea for an attempt requires full intent to commit the whole offence. This rule is maintained in cases like R v Whybrow (1951) 35 Cr App R 141, which stays relevant under the 1981 Act. The prosecution must show the defendant planned to complete every part of the offence, even if some parts were not achieved. For example, in attempted murder, the prosecution must show intent to kill, not just intent to cause serious harm, as stated in R v Mohan [1976] QB 1.
The Actus Reus of Attempt: "More Than Merely Preparatory"
The actus reus requires an act that is “more than merely preparatory” to the offence. This wording has caused much discussion and court analysis. Unlike the mens rea, which demands intent for the full offence, the actus reus centers on the defendant’s actions and how close they were to finishing the crime. The key case is R v Gachette [1996] Crim LR 817, which stresses that acts must directly connect to the offence, not just early planning. Other important cases include R v Jones (1990) 91 Cr App R 351 and R v Campbell (1991) 93 Cr App R 350.
Impossible Attempts
The 1981 Act also deals with “impossible attempts” under Section 1(2) and Section 1(3). An impossible attempt happens when the crime cannot be finished due to facts the defendant did not know. Examples include trying to steal from an empty pocket or using a harmless substance as poison. The Act makes clear such attempts remain punishable. R v Shipley [1957] 1 QB 149 gives more direction on this idea.
Applying the 1981 Act in Practice: Case Examples
Using the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 often relies on specific case details. Consider this example:
Scenario: A person buys a crowbar and drives to a jewelry store late at night. They are stopped by police before trying to break in.
Analysis: Buying the crowbar and going to the store might be seen as planning, but the situation—time of night and the person’s actions—could lead a jury to decide these steps were close enough to burglary to count as an attempt.
Compare this with another example:
Scenario: A person learns lock-picking online and buys lock picks. They are later arrested for another crime, and the tools are found.
Analysis: Here, the actions are likely seen as planning. While the person took steps to gain burglary skills, they did not act on a specific target.
Conclusion
The Criminal Attempts Act 1981 provides a clear legal structure for addressing unfinished crimes. Understanding both the mens rea and actus reus parts is important for correct use. The “more than merely preparatory” test for actus reus needs careful review of each case’s details, informed by rulings such as R v Gachette, R v Jones, and R v Campbell. The treatment of impossible attempts shows the law’s aim to punish behavior showing clear intent to commit a crime, even if unknown factors stop completion. The relationship between these parts requires exact use of the 1981 Act in court cases.
