The CAA was intended to improve the law on attempts. The extent to which it has succeeded is open to doubt. Critically evaulate the accuracy of this statement.
An attempt is where the defendant tries to commit an offence but for some reason fails to complete it. This was seen in the case of White 1910. The defendant wanted to kill his mither in order to gain his inheritance. He attempted to do this by poisioning her drink. Before she had chance to drink it she died of a heart attack. The defendant was not liable for her murder as his act of poisoning the milk was not the cause of death. He was liable for attempt.
Attempt is defined under the Ciminal attempts act 1981 as 'if with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a
…show more content…
In the cases of Gullefer, Geddes and Campbell they looked at the section 5.2.1 show that the courts are not always prepared to take a broad approach when deciding what is 'more than merely preparatory '. This makes it difficult to know what conduct will be considered MTMP. However, it can be argued that the MTMP test is an improvment on the law prior to the CAA 1981. The old law used a variety of different tests so it was not easy to predict what test would be used in any given case.
The MTMP test has helped to clarify the law, it has also made it easier for juries to apply the law as they use here common sense when deciding if the defendents acts are more than merely preparatory. The law commission suggested in their consultation paper that the law should be reformed to have two offences instead of just attempt they suggested that they should be: Criminal attempt and Criminal preperation.
Secondly, the protection of the public has also been problematic under the law of attempts. As seen in the cases of Jones and Geddes. The defendents in these cases were found not guilty. In Geddes, the defendent was actually in the school with all the equipment needed to kidnap a student. Surely the protection of the public is the most important and Geddes should 've been convicted of attempt. There is a need to give the police the opportunity to stop criminals before an offence is
…show more content…
This was seen in Husseyn. The defendent was seen loitering near a van. The police approached and the defendent ran off. He was convicted of attempting to steal sub-aqua equipment, but this conviction was quashed as he was specificly looking to steal sub-aqua equipment. The only was to insure that the defendent is found guilty is by making sure that the indictment is drafted in a certain way. The law commission propose that the definition of attempt in the CAA should be amended so that an intent to commit an offence includes a conditional attempt to commit it. If this proposal is accepted then the gap in the law will be solved. This means that people who intended to commit a crime but the indictment for it is too specifc as seen in Husseyn will be found
... but there must also be some indication in the legislation, its purpose and context showing this intention. The courts’ duty is to ensure that the legislative target is hit and not merely to record that it has been missed, but it must also be careful not to trespass on the separation of powers. If a gap is disclosed in the legislation, the remedy lies in amending the Act.
...arately from the length of the delay, the prejudice towards the accused can be inferred from the length of the delay as established in R. v. Morin. Examining the Morin guidelines made the decision and since the guidelines set out an 8 to 10 month institutional delay and in this case the court deemed that the Crown was responsible for 23 months of delay. The court failed to justify the reason for the 23-month delay and since it exceeded the Morin guidelines the court concluded that the delay was unreasonable and the accused’s right under Section 11(b) of the Charter has been violated and the trial within a reasonable time was infringed and negated.
Smart AJ specifically gave due regard to the statements made by Sentas and Cowdery that “an arrest should be a measure of last resort” . The appropriateness of an arrest when the offence is of a minor nature, the name of the defendant is known to the police officers and the defendant does not intend to depart and there is no reason to believe that summons issued will be honoured. The...
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
... be found in Mr. Hill’s case given he position set out by the majority judgement in this case.
Criminal Code s.230(a) “one who intends on causing bodily harm for the purpose of (i) actually committing the offence, or (ii) planning his escape after committing or attempting to commit the offence, and the death derives from the bodily harm;” (Criminal Code of Canada)
When it comes to the elements of attempt there are two. It is the purpose or intent to commit a specific crime and an act(s) in order to carry out the intent. There are two types of attempt statures and they are general attempt statute and specific attempt statute. General attempt statute is a single statute that involves the attempt to commit any crime in the state’s criminal code. An example of this is just any crime. Specific attempt statute is defining attempts as specific crimes. An example of this is attempted murder. Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal attempt cases and these are attempt mens rea and actus rea. Attempt mens rea is the specific attempt to commit a crime and actus reus is taking steps to complete a crime.
The “reasonable man/police officer” test is an important tool used in the U.S Supreme Court system.
Major problems were experienced in the early years after the Act over how the preserved common law conspiracy to defraud dovetailed with the new statutory conspiracy to commit a crime as frequently, an agreement to defraud will necessarily involve an agreement to commit a substantive offence entailing dishonesty such as theft or the new offence of fr...
Since Dusky v United States created the bench mark for CTS, there have been many other cases and Supreme Court decisions that have modified and refined CST. The three main cases that demonstrate this modification to CST are; Washington v Harper (1990), Riggins v Nevada (1992) and Sell v United states (2003). Each of these cases demonstrated the government attempting to restore the...
Ronald V Clarke originally developed the idea of situational crime prevention in the 1980’s (Brantingham & Brantingham 2005). This particular crime prevention theory addresses techniques that increase the effort required to commit the crime, increase the risks involved with committing the crime, reducing the reward gained by the offender after committing the crime, reducing the provocation between the offender and others and remove excuses (Brantingham & Brantingham 2005). Majority of crime is believed to be committed because there are no high risks of being caught and the rewards outweigh the risks (Brantingham & Brantingham 2005). Increasing the effort by controlling access to locations and target hardening can deflect many offenders, as more effort is needed to commit the crime (Brantingham & Brantingham 2005). Another main technique would be to increase the risks; this may be achieved by extending guardianship, creating natural surveillance or artificial surveillance such as CCTV (Brantingham & Brantingham 2005).
Lippman, M. (2012). Contemporary Criminal Law Concepts, Cases and Controversies (3rd ed.). [Vitalsouce Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from http://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781452277660/5/3
The issue in this question is regarding the effect of Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) to previous English sentencing system regarding one of the aims of punishment i.e. retribution. It is a duty for courts to apply under section 142 (1) of CJA 2003. The section requires the courts to have regarded the aims in imposing sentence to offenders which has now plays a smaller role in serving punishment. And how profound this changes has been.
In the case of R v Maloney (1985), the defendant and the Victim (stepfather of the defendant), were drunk when they decided to have a contest of who can load and fire a gun more quickly. The defendant shot the victim without aiming as the victim taunted the defendant to fire the gun. Lord Bridge held ‘Foresight of consequences as an element bearing on the issue of intention in murder... belongs, not to the substantive law but the law of evidence’ (Molan, 2001: 95), oblique intent here is held ...
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,