Difference Between Criminal Attempt And Commitment Of Crime

Criminal Attempt
Proposal
Topic & Theme (1.1)
This study is going to be investigating what criminal attempt is and if it should
carry the same punishment as committing the crime. To be classed as a criminal, a crime
needs to be broken. The definition of a criminal in the oxford dictionary is “a person who
commits a crime”1. The word “commit” gives the impression that the action has already
taken place. Thus, giving the word “criminal” a sense of previous action. This brings up the
question at what point is a crime committed? With their being around 30 public general
acts being introduced every year the law is getting more and more complicated. Therefore,
being able to accurately say what the exact point preparation has turned into commitment
would be a challenging feat. This introduces another question, should a person be
criminalised when they have not actually done the crime? Currently, with the jails in the
UK being overpopulated as it is. Is sending more people to prison for crime they technically
have not committed yet the best use of the country’s resources. With that in mind, should
there be an alternative legislation put in place for punishments for preparing to commit a
crime or would this result in the same issues seen with the current legislation?
Research Aims (1.2)
This study is going to look at possible changes to the current legislation
surrounding criminal attempt. If changes do need to be made what is the best solution for
the issues, and does new legislation that will place implications on people who are preparing
to commit a crime need to be introduced.
Research Question (1.2)
 When is a crime committed?
 Should a person be criminalised when they have not actually done the crime?
 Should there be implications for preparations?
Background (1.3)
The current legislation regarding criminal attempt 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”2. With that in mind, at what point is the person going past the preparatory stage
and actually committing the crime? In ancient Roman times there was a law that forbade
any general from crossing the Rubicon River. If they were to do so, this would be
considered an act of treason. This idea can be implemented into current day law, with the
phrase “crossing the Rubicon” meaning that the person who has taken such a task has
committed to it and can no longer return. Which would mean that once they have decided
to commit to the action, they are guilty of it regardless of the outcome.
Judges can decide to use the “crossing the Rubicon” method to determine a case,
they can also look at utilising Mens Rea, as well as Actus Reus. Oxford dictionary defines
Mens Rea as “The subjective element for criminality, requires that a defendant have both a
culpable state of mind and the particular mental state.”3. Using this will allow for the judge
to determine the mental state of the person in question, aiding them in the final decision.

Collins’s dictionary defines actus reus as “A criminal action regarded as a constituent
element of a crime, as compared with the state of mind of the perpetrator.”4. Using this will
give the judge the ability to figure out the intention of the person on the trial.
Key Stages (2.1)
This report will be discussing the stages at which a crime has been committed, if a
person should be charged the full amount for the crime or if there should be a different law
regarding this situation. The case studies that are going to be used will create an
understanding that this subject is almost always left up to debate. This is due to the
complicated nature of these cases with the outcome of them being so unclear. The aim of
this report to somewhat break down at what point a crime has been committed, if there
should be any new legislation put in place, or if the current method is the best available.
Plan (2.2)
The report will consist of three different chapters. First being an introduction to the
topic. This will include a brief explanation of what the research is going to be focused
around and it will also present the questions. Chapter two will be about the four cases that
have been selected for this report. The final chapter will be a conclusion on the findings
made in the report. This will be followed by any conclusions made regarding the
hypothesises that are mentioned in the introduction.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Case studies
Chapter 3: Conclusion
Research Methodology (2.3 & 3.1)
The references used within this report have been collected through a qualitive
method. This method has been used as to not flood the report with citations from other
research to make sure that the information provided is of a high quality. Secondary data has
been used to provide to find suitable answers for the hypothesises within the report. With
time limitations, not enough primary data can be collected that will provide enough of an
insight to be able to draw any conclusions from. Both websites and research done by other
researchers will be references within the report.
References
1- 'Criminal_1 Noun - Definition, Pictures, Pronunciation And Usage Notes | Oxford
Advanced Learner's Dictionary At Oxfordlearnersdictionaries.Com'
(Oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com, 2022)
<https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/criminal_1> accessed 25
March 2022
2- 'Criminal Attempts Act 1981' (Legislation.gov.uk, 1981)
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/47> accessed 25 March 2022
3- 'Mens Rea' (Oxford Reference, 2022)
<https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100150312>
accessed 25 March 2022
4- 'Actus Reus' (Collins Dictonary, 2022)
<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/actus-reus> accessed 29 March
2022

5- 'R V Jones (Kenneth)' (Queensburylaw.files.wordpress.com, 1990)
<https://queensburylaw.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/r-v-jones.pdf> accessed 29 March
2022
6- 'R V Gullefer' (Queensburylaw.files.wordpress.com, 1986)
<https://queensburylaw.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/r-v-gullefer.pdf> accessed 29 March
2022
7- All Answers ltd, 'R v Shivpuri - 1986' (Lawteacher.net, March 2022)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-shivpuri.php?vref=1> accessed 29 March 2022
8- (Queensburylaw.files.wordpress.com, 1986)
<https://queensburylaw.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/r-v-shivpuri.pdf> accessed 29
March 2022
9- All Answers ltd, 'Attorney General's Reference No. 3 of 1992' (Lawteacher.net, March 2022)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/attorney-generals-reference-no-3.php?vref=1>
accessed 30 March 2022
Report
Chapter 1: Introduction
The current legislation in place for criminal attempt is that “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.”2. Meaning that once a certain stage of the crime has been passed the
perpetrator is guilty. However, with no real point of reference it can be very difficult to
pinpoint what the exact point of no return is. This leaves a gap within the law which will
ultimately be decided upon by the lay people in the jury. It can be argued that because the
jury is made up of lay people and not technical experts within law. That their decision could
me made with no basis. However, this will not be the main focus of this report and will not
be researched into as heavily.
With the understanding that the law currently has a gap within it. It brings up the
questions, should a person be criminalised when they have not actually done the crime?
Should? At what point is a crime committed? Should there be implication for preparations?
These three questions are going to be the main focus of this report. Analysis of cases will
hopefully lead to answers to the hypothesis.
Chapter 2: Case Studies
R v Jones (Kenneth) (1990)
In this case, Jones gets into a car with his ex-mistress’s new lovers car with a sawn-
off shotgun and points it at him, the victim manages to escape. Jones is then taken to court
and charged with attempted murder. When the case was taken to court the jury found him
guilty and he was charged with 14 years’ imprisonment. There are notes within the
documentation request that the attempt of murder to be withdrawn due to a lack of actions
taken by the defendant. “The appellant submitted that the charge of attempted murder
should be withdrawn from the jury since the full offence of murder could not have been
committed until the appellant performed at least three more acts, namely released the safety
catch, put his finger on the trigger and then pulled it.”5. The trial rejected this submission
which then lead to his conviction.