1. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Synoptic Paper Revision
Guide
2012
Attempts
Basic Set Up of the Exam
Time: 1 ½ hours
Question Synopsis of one of the eight cases in the booklet  What did it decide?
One:  How far does this confirm existing law?
 How far has the law developed since?
 Link to at least one other case and the
sources!
Question One essay based on a quote from one of the sources, critically  Put the quote into context
Two evaluating that area of the law  Define and evaluate the development of
the area.
 Law reform
Save this question for last!  Produce a balanced argument.
 Link to sources!
Question Three problem questions which require application of the law  Locate the definitions in the sources
Three: to the scenario, explanation and conclusion.  3 critical points in each problem and a
relevant case
 Conclude

2. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Speed Test (1) Speed Test (2)
Identify the sources and line numbers of the following Identify the sources and line numbers of the following
1. Where will you find the definition of attempts? 1. Where will you find the definition common law on attempting to do the
impossible?
2. Which source[s] talk about the problems of mens rea and attempted murder?
2. Identify two sources which discuss the meaning of ‘more than merely
preparatory’?
3. Where will you find reference to the literal rule?
3. Which sources discusses reform to the current law on attempts?
4. Identify two problems with the current law on attempting the impossible ,
using the sources.
4. Where will you fine the facts of Jones?
5. Where will you find reference to the role of the judge in attempts?
5. Where will you find the reason for criminalising attempts?
6. Name one case from the sources which overrules an earlier precedent
6. Where will you find reference to the role of the jury in attempts?
7. Name one case which follows an earlier precedent.
7. Name one case from the sources which reverses the decision of the lower
court.
8. Which source discusses the problem of recklessness and attempts?
8. Which two sources mention the case of Guellfer?
9. Which source*s+ discuss the problem of ‘preparatory acts’?
9. Where will you find the facts of Whybrow?
10. Identify two problems with the current law on attempts.
10. Where will you find the problem of oblique intention in attempts discussed?

3. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Essential Cases
For each of the cases below, write in the facts, ratio and area (AR, MR or Impossibility)
Then, highlight the current cases only (so you are clear on what’s good law now!)
Case Facts Ratio Area? Case Facts Ratio Area?
1. Campbell 15. Boyle & Boyle
2. Guellfer 16. Eagleton
3. Geddes 17. Robinson
4. Jones (Kenneth) 18. Stonehouse
5. Whybrow 19. Husseyn
6. Mohan 20. Davey v Lee
7. AG’s Ref No. 3 of 21. Jones (2007)
1992

4. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Case Facts Ratio Area? Case Facts Ratio Case
8. Shivpuri 22. Dagnall
9. White 23. Anderton v Ryan
10. Tosti 24.Bowles & Bowles
11. Walker & Hayes 25. AG’s Ref No 1&2 of
1979
12. Haughton v Smith 26. Khan
13. Mason v DPP 27. Crowley &
Llewellyn
14. Taafe 28. AG’s Ref No.1 of
1992

5. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Summaries of Sources
Source 1: Extract adapted from Criminal Law. Catherine Elliott and Frances
Quinn 7th Edition 2008
This source comes from a text book and introduces the reasons behind the
criminalisation of an attempts – explaining that the person who tries to do
something and fails is just as morally liable as the successful criminal. It also contains
the definition of an attempt and introduces the role of the judge and jury in the
case. Finally, it begins to look at eh phrase ‘more than merely preparatory’ and
points out that it is difficult to find the line between a preparatory action and an
attempt It also introduces the key cases of Campbell, Geddes and Gullefer and points
out that the decision in Campbell is surprising and that the courts have not always
been consistent in their use of the test.
Source 2: Extract Adapted from the judgement of Bingham CJ in Geddes [1996] 160 JP 697
This source comes from the Court of Appeal and focuses on the meaning of the
words ‘more than merely preparatory’. Lord Bingham argues that the actions of
D were not MTMP but merely getting ready and so not enough under the Act.
He also refers to suppressed evidence at the trial [Nicola Green], which may
have been enough to prompt a finding of MTM,P and makes it clear than an
attempt will rely on the particular facts of a case (no general rule). He points out
that the reason for the appeal is the judge’s ruling that there was evidence that
D had done an act which was MTMP, and disagrees with this, reversing the
previous decision.
Source 3: Extract adapted from the judgment of Taylor LJ in Jones (Kenneth)
[1990] 3 All ER 886
This judgement from the Court of Appeal focuses on the meaning of more than
merely preparatory, and how the phrase should be interpreted. Lord Taylor makes it
clear that the literal rule is to be used in interpreting the words, and approving the
earlier instruction of Lord Lane in Gullefer. Again, the court confirms that when an
attempt will begin will depend on the facts of the case, and make it clear that many
of D’s actions here were preparatory. It is only by getting in the car and pulling out
the gun that he becomes liable for the attempted murder.

6. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Source 4: Extract adapted from the judgement of Hilbery LCJ in Whybrow (Arthur
George) (1951) Cr. App. R. 141 (CA).
This judgment from the Court of Appeal concerns the crime of attempted murder, and
what the mens rea should be. Lord Hilbery compares the full and attempted offences,
explaining that in the attempt, it is the mens rea which is the principle ingredient and so
that is why it requires the higher mens rea (intention to kill only) than the full offence. He
also comments that this may make the law illogical as the attempt is treated as more evil
than the successful killing.
Source 5: Extract adapted from Criminal Law, Alan Reed and Ben Fitzpatrick , 3rd Edition 2006
This source focuses on the problem of mens rea and attempts. It proposes that the law
should change so that the mens rea for the partial offence and the mens rea for the full
offence are the same. Despite arguing this, it does acknowledge that this would still
lead to oddities, such as someone who only intended GBH being charged with
attempted murder. After confirming the approach of the courts to attempted murder,
the authors also go on to discuss how the courts have interpreted the meaning of the
word ‘intention’ to include not just direct, but oblique and even recklessness. They
imply that the courts have consistently refused to take one clear approach and instead
continued to find ways round the words of the Act, concluding that changing the mens
rea to that of the full offence would be a simpler, fairer alternative.
Source 6: Extract adapted from Criminal Law Michael Jefferson 9th Edition 2009
This source focuses on attempts to do the impossible. The author begins by summarising the
old common law approach and the problem with it – that D still has a clear intent to break
the law. It also contains the definition for attempting to do the impossible (lines 9-10). The
author points out that the use of the words ‘may be’ in the statute allows the prosecution to
not press charges in certain situations. He goes on to discuss the case of Shivpuri and point
out that the decision reflects the supremacy of Parliament and the need for the courts to
follow what Parliament says. He also points out one major problem: that the current
approach means that you can be found guilty of attempting to steal your own property,
where the full offence (the theft of your own property) would be impossible to complete and
argues that just trusting the CPS not to prosecute is not enough.

7. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
What Could Show Up & How to Answer
All of this is in addition to the information we covered at the start of this term on the powerpoint!
Question One:
This is assessed for AO2 and worth 12 marks (+4 AO3 marks). This means that you should spend about 15 minutes on
it. This will be based on one of the cases mentioned in the sources, and ask you to consider how it develops the law.
There is a lot of detail on them in the sources
This means you will need to know what each case in the sources decides, and another case to show how it extends
the law on the specified area and/ or where it comes from (involuntary manslaughter)
These cases are:
 R v Campbell (1991)  R v Whybrow (Arthur George) (1951)
 R v Guellefer [1990]  R v Mohan [1976]
 R v Geddes [1996]  Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1992)
 R v Jones (Kenneth) [1990] [1994]
 R v Shivpuri [1987]
It is focusing on precedent really (and thus bringing in part of AS Law). It will ask you to consider “the ways which...”
or the “extent to which...” or “evaluate the fairness of...”
Essentially, you need to say:
 What the critical point of law from the case is (using the source)
 How far it confirms the prior law
 How far it changes the law (with reference to at least one other case).
Example Question
“Explain the significance to the law on attempts of the case of R v Shivpuri [source 5, line 14+”
Examiner’s Tip: Aim to explain three critical points about the case in question, and relating it to a significant
case. There aren’t any marks for describing the facts of the case alone!
Some sample Questions….
1. Briefly explain the importance of R v Gullfer to the development of the law of constructive act manslaughter
2. Examine whether the precedent in Attorney Generals’ Ref No. 2 of 1992 lead to justice or injustice.
3. Discuss the extent to which the precedent in R v Geddes represents a development in the law on attempts
4. Discuss the ways in which Campbell developed the law on attempts.

8. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Question Two:
This is the BIG question, and is quite broad in its scope. It is worth 34 marks, which are split between AO1 and
AO2. You should aim to spend about 40 minutes on it. You will be given a quote from one of the sources, and
asked to do an extended critical comment on the area of the law. This focuses on the limits of the law, and
current developments. It should be balanced and reasoned. Really you are looking at whether the development
of the law has been reasoned and consistent, or subject to change.
This means that you need to also know the law beyond the sources
You must use the sources and should spend the first 5-10 minutes of answering to annotate the sources, and
pick out relevant points. You need to understand exactly what each source is arguing – do they agree? Do they
disagree? What precisely is their argument and how far does this fit with the current approach of the law. You
don’t need to write them out, just refer to the source number and the line number e.g. source X, line XX.
(Vague mentions of the source will attract no marks!)
You should treat this as a 50 mark question.
It will be a question on attempts, and will use a quotation from one of the sources as a start. You should start
your response by putting this quote into context: what is the source arguing? Why are they arguing it?
You will need to look at what the law under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 is, and the difficulties that the
judges have had in clarifying and interpreting this law.
You will need to use a range of quotes from the source, and add your own knowledge to the 8 cases in the
source (in other words look to use about 15+ cases)
Example Question
In Source One, lines 1-2 the author states that “the criminal law does not punish people just for intending to
commit a crime...”
Discuss how accurately the statement above reflects the interpretation of the law on attempts by the courts
[34]
Examiner’s Tip: Focus on balance and reason in your answer, and make sure to identify the point of the
question in your introduction

9. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Potential Question Two Titles:
Discuss the argument that with relation to attempts ““the intent becomes the principal ingredient of the crime”
[Source 5, line 16]
“The criminal law … recognises that conduct aimed at committing an offence may be just as blameworthy if it fails to
achieve its purpose as if it had been successful.” *Source 1, Lines 1-3]
Discuss how far this statement accurately reflects the approach of the courts to the law on attempts.
“The difficulty for the law on attempts is to determine where to draw the line – how far does someone have to go
towards committing an offence before his or her acts become criminal?” Source 1, lines 6-8
Analyse the extent to which this statement accurately reflects the development of the law on attempts
“It may be said that the law, which is not always logical, is somewhat illogical [in its approach in Attempts].” *Source
4 lines 16-17]
Discuss how far this statement reflects recent development in the law on attempts
In Source 5 the authors argue that “if you say that someone is attempting to bring about a result you are saying that
he intends to achieve that result.”[Source 5, Line 8-9]
Analyse the extent to which this reflects the development of the law on attempts.
The Court of Appeal had another chance to review this area of law ... and appeared to find yet another way to
identify the
mens rea in attempted crime.” [Source 5, lines 31-33]
Evaluate how accurately this statement reflects the development of attempts by the courts
“Whether one should be guilty [of an attempt] is a matter of policy, and should not be left to the discretion of the
prosecution…” *Source 6, lines 23-4]
Discuss how accurately the above statement reflects how judges have developed the law on attempts.

10. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Question 3
This will consist of three short problem questions to which you need to identify the relevant aspects of law,
and then apply it to the situation. They are very straightforward! It should take you about 30 minutes to
answer. They are worth 30 marks and this is divided up into 10 marks for AO1 and 20 for AO2
Essentially, they are an extended version of the section C questions on G153
Remember that most of the relevant definitions will be the sources
Example Question
Discuss whether a conviction for attempts would be possible in each of the following situations:
Greg and Hans are found in the garden of a house with masks, a torch and screwdrivers in their pockets. They
admit they intended to burgle the house. Unfortunately, unknown to them, the house had been knocked down
three days ago.
Amir knows his girlfriend has been going out with Blake. Amir plans to disfigure Blake. He buys some acid
which he intends to throw in Blake’s face and then drives to Blake’s house. As he is about to get out of the car,
he sees a police car nearby. Amir immediately drives off.
Connor puts some poison in Donna’s drink, intending to kill her. The amount he puts in the drink is insufficient
to kill and Donna survives
Examiner’s Tip: You should be able to identify at least three points of application plus a case for each
high for marks.
e.g. D may be liable for an attempt because by poisoning the drink he is doing an act
which is more than merely preparatory as in case
Section Three Questions
Discuss whether a conviction for attempts is possible in each of the following situations:
(a) James thinks that Lewis, a police officer, is out to get him. As a result he decides to try and ‘get’ Lewis first. He
confronts him and swings at him, trying to stab him in the chest. He misses. Unknown to James, Lewis is wearing
a stab-proof vest. [10]
(b) Sarah picks up Louise’s bag intending to steal her purse. However, Louise has taken it out and there is only a
diamond necklace in there. Sarah puts the bag back. She is charged with attempted theft.
(c) Brian wants to burgle the Christmas’ to ensure he has enough presents for his family. He has a lock pick and a
hammer on him. PC Steve, who is walking past the house, sees Brian bent over looking at the lock and arrests
Brian for attempted burglary.

11. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Discuss whether a conviction for attempts is possible in each of the following situations:
(a) Dave wants to kill Louise and. He creeps up behind her and takes his hands out of his pockets intending to
strangle her, when Simon, who is suspicious, pulls his hands away before he can lift them.
(b) Dalvinder bets that his horse, Racing Diamond, will win the local race. After the race has started, he sees that his
horse has gone lame and worried about losing his £1000 bet, throws a rock at the leading horses, wanting to
confuse and startle them so they throw their jockeys and the race is abandoned. He manages to hit the leading
course, but the race continues. He is charged with attempted theft.
(c) Valentino escapes from prison. He tries to force open the door to a caravan in the hope of finding something of
value but gives up when he sees a policeman, Joe. He is charged with attempted burglary
Discuss whether a conviction for attempts is possible in each of the following situations:
(a) Meg is angry at Steven for cheating on her with her sister. She confronts him at work and fires a gun at him,
intending to scare him. She hits him in the knee. She is charged with attempted murder
(b) Bernard believes in voodoo. He is angry at Miss Hart who has set him far too much homework and decides to kill
her. He creates a voodoo doll, and sticks pins in it, believing that it will have the required effect on Miss Hart.
(c) Sebastian and James are rival shop owners who are feuding over customers. Sebastian believes that James is
stealing his customers, and fed up, wants to stop James. He decides to throw a lit brick at James’ shop, hoping
that the damage will stop him opening. He misses and it bounces off a nearby wall. Unknown to him, James is in
the shop taking inventory when he throws the brick at 6.30pm. Sebastian is charged with attempted criminal
damage endangering life.

12. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Reforms to the Law on Attempts
Source Links: Source 5 lines 44-6; Source 6 lines 4-6
Law Commission Consultation on Attempts 2007
What did they  Change to the role of the judge and the jury in attempts.
recommend?  Introduction of a new alternative offence of criminal preparation
 Allowing prosecution for summary offences and omissions
Why did they Some overlap and repetition in the role of the judge and jury was leading to inconsistencies (the
recommend it? judge finding there was evidence of MTMP, and the jury disagreeing).
The decision of the Court of Appeal in Geddes and Campbell was too narrow and the court too
inconsistent (compare to the decision of the court in Tosti and Dagnall), so an alternative offence
would ‘capture’ these cases.
No logical reason to have an exception for summary offences and omissions, especially as it
meant that a person who is stopped from starving their child to death cannot be charged with
attempted murder.
The changes in the role The judge will decide if there is enough evidence under which a reasonable jury would find that D
of judge and jury... did acts or omissions capable of being more than merely preparatory.
The role of the jury will then be only to decide whether D did the acts or omissions alleged, not
whether they were enough for an attempt. MTMP will become a matter of law, not of fact.
Alternative offence... D could be liable for the alternative offence of criminal preparation, which would encompass acts
linked to the final offence, but not immediately connected.
It would have the same maximum sentence as an attempt and was designed to encompass cases
such as Geddes and Campbell.
Summary Offences & Would allow prosecution for both of these, which are currently excluded under the Act. For
Omissions summary offences, the DPP would have to grant permission and the omissions exception would
apply to all offences.
The final Law Commission Report 2009
What did they Keep the law as it is, with one small exception – allow murder by omission to be prosecuted in
recommend? the future. Appears to be general consensus that the current law works appropriately.
Why did they Majority of consultees could not agree on each of the proposals. The murder by omission was the
recommend this? only one generally agreed on.

13. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Writing a Model Answer:
Explain the significance of R v Campbell [source 1, lines 22-26] to the development of the law on attempts.
AO2
STRUCTURE:
1. INTRODUCTION:
Identify the area of law, and the importance of The Court of Appeal allowed D’s appeal quashing his conviction
the case (what was decided and why) for attempted robbery as it alleged that an attempt had yet to be
committed [source 1, lines 23-4] as he had yet to enter the post
office, and so his acts were not more than merely preparatory,
which was the required test under the Criminal Attempts Act
1981 s.1. They confirmed that this was the right test, and the
prior tests e.g. Proximity were not necessary. The trial judge had
referred to these tests, and so D’s conviction was quashed.
2. SECTION ONE
How does the decision link to the preceeding This conclusion may be unfair to the police, who believed that D
law? was about to commit a robbery and would seem to hamper their
How far does/ did it confirm the existing law? powers to protect the public. However, it is consistent with the
court’s approach in R v Guellfer which said that the starting point
must be the words of the act, and whether D had embarked on
the crime proper.
3. SECTION TWO
How does this decision reflect changes in the This approach to the law was followed by the Court of Appeal in R
law? v Geddes [Source 2, lines 12-14], who confirmed that D must have
Do later cases confirm it? moved from planning and preparation to execution or
implementation to have met the test under the Act. The Law
Commission had proposed a new offence of criminal preparation
which would probably have included actions such as Campbell’s
and provide a more just outcome.
4. CONCLUSION
Did it really change the law? Yes/ No and why. Campbell, therefore, is significant in that it confirms that the
judge must focus on the test under the 1981 Act, even though
Use the key words of the question. this may make the law on attempts less effective to enforce as
the police would have to wait for the defendant to actually try
and rob the post office to be liable.

14. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Writing a model answer (2)
Discuss whether a conviction for manslaughter is possible in each of the following situations:
a) Connor puts some poison in Donna’s drink, intending to kill her. The amount he puts in the drink is insufficient to
kill and Donna survives.
According to s.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981, D is guilty of an attempt if he intends
to do an Act which is more than merely preparatory (Source One, lines 10-13). By
putting the poison in the drink, Connor is clearly performing a more than preparatory
act as he has “begun to carry out the commission of the offence” (source 2, line 22).
This is similar to the case of White, where D was convicted of attempted murder for
poisoning his mother’s drink, in spite of the fact that she died of an unrelated heart
attack.
In addition, under the law as confirmed in Whybrow, where D electrocuted his wife
(Source 4, lines 1-7) the mens rea for attempted murder is the intent to kill only.
Connor clearly has the mens rea and so appears to be liable.
Although the completed offence is impossible, as the amount of poison was not
enough to kill, under s. 1(2) of the Act, Connor can still be liable “even though the facts
are such that the commission of the offence is impossible.
In conclusion, this means that Connor is likely to be liable for the attempted murder of
Donna.
a) Greg and Hans are found in the garden of a house with masks, a torch and screwdrivers in their pockets.
They admit they intended to burgle the house. Unfortunately, unknown to them, the house had been
knocked down three days ago.
b) Amir knows his girlfriend has been going out with Blake. Amir plans to disfigure Blake. He buys some acid
which he intends to throw in Blake’s face and then drives to Blake’s house. As he is about to get out of the
car, he sees a police car nearby. Amir immediately drives off.

15. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Writing a model answer (3)
2. In Source One, lines 1-2 the author states that “the criminal law does not punish people just for intending to commit a
crime...”
Discuss how accurately the statement above reflects the interpretation of the law on attempts by the courts .
Section What do I do? AO1 AO2 Source?
Introduction Quote into
context & key
ideas
Why do we
criminalise
attempts?
Main AR
Key case and
general approach
How has this been
developed by
following cases?
Are they
consistent?
Are all offences
treated the same?
Earlier tests
Would they have
provided a better
alternative?
MR
Key case and
general approach
The problem of
attempted
murder
Oblique intent?

16. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Other issues in
mens rea for
attempts?
Recklessness?
Conditional
intent?
Impossible:
General approach
and key case
Previous law:
How does this
relate to prior
approaches?
More recent
approaches:
Reform
What are the
problems with the
current law?
What has been
proposed? Why?
What are the
responses?
Conclusion Using the quote,
link back to
approach of the
courts

17. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Examiner’s Report from January 2011
Please note that this is not on attempts, but does contain some very useful general notes on approaches to the
paper (the skills don’t change!)
General Comments
This was the first sitting of the Criminal Law Special Study unit under the new criminal law theme of Involuntary
Manslaughter which covers the January and June 2011 papers. Again, however, despite the general comments from
the January and June 2010 reports, and the narrower focus of the paper on a single topic, candidates would have
been expected to have tackled each question with a greater clarity and structure than was evident. In many cases,
this simply did not happen. This is particularly concerning given the following assistance available to candidates: the
reduced number of cases from the source materials from which question 1 can be taken than in pre-2010 special
study papers; the availability of AO2 in the sources for question 2 and the availability of definitions in the sources for
use in question 3. Centres and candidates are advised to read the Special Study Skills Pointer Guide, available from
the OCR website, which explains the skills and structure candidates need to know to successfully tackle the paper.
Time management continues to be a problem with candidates spending a disproportionate amount of time, in
particular, on question 1. In some extreme cases, candidates would write three or four pages (see below). This is to
the potential detriment of the other two questions, in particular question 2. As stated in previous reports,
candidates should be advised to try to work to the mark a minute guidance.
Comments on Individual Questions
Question 1*
Question 1, in its traditional style, called for an examination of a case from the source materials. Only AO2 and AO3
marks are available for this question with the emphasis on evaluation. In order to achieve high marks candidates
were required to identify the critical point arising from the judgment.
There was a range of responses and indeed some excellent answers showing full understanding of the skills required
for the question and thereby gaining maximum or near maximum marks. Again, despite previous reports explaining
this point, candidates achieving mid-ranking marks continued to lose out on the high marks by failing to address the
question itself, in this case, the issue of the cases’ ‘significance’. More alarming is, however, the traditional and
worrying trend of writing lengthy ‘essay’ type answers for this question. This may be a reflection on, for some
candidates certainly, the inability to write a thorough answer to question 2 and thus the feeling of being obliged to
write everything they know in question 1. Candidates are advised to follow the ‘mark a minute’ rule.
Two other points are worth raising with regard to this question. Firstly, the vast majority of responses were able to
provide a linked case. In some responses candidates gave as many as five or six, showing the development of law. It
is important to note that with only 12 AO2 marks available, and candidates being required to explain the key critical
point of the case, show development by linking to an appropriate case and address the key word(s) within the
question, such quantity of linked cases is unlikely to be the best use of a candidate’s time. Secondly, a large number
of candidates (whilst not always required to) used the opportunity to explain other relevant points linked to the case
to such an extent it became an answer based around the linked case(s) as opposed to the key case itself.
Question 2*
Given the breadth of this topic area and the question asked, it produced varying responses. This question required a
focus on a discussion of the difficulties in defining the area of the law and how the judges have developed, or not,
the law. The best responses were based therefore on the context of the overarching theme (role of judges, use of
precedent and the development of law). Each Source contained a wealth of useful information as well as comment
that was useful in answering the question. Most candidates were able to describe and comment on the offence.
However, there was a tendency for many candidates to simply rattle through a basic definition of the types with
mechanical evaluation. This resulted in many weak responses. Where candidates did discuss the parts of the
definitions using cases to explain or back up their answers, they did generally gain high AO1 marks. It was interesting
to note that many candidates performed better on AO2 than AO1. This seemed due to generally weak or brief
definitions and the use (or not) of cases for AO1. Generally, evaluation lacked sophistication and direction both to
the question set and the levels of assessment and consequently it became unusual to mark a candidate beyond level
3 or 4 for AO2 and for that matter AO1.

18. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
For AO1, candidates could have secured high marks by providing detailed definitions of the areas of the offence
illustrating them with the numerous cases that support the issue of definitional problems or lack of clarity. There are
eight cases in the Criminal Law Special Study Materials so candidates would be expected to consider at least eight
with an expectation to go beyond the Sources to find relevant cases to achieve the level 5 descriptor. It was pleasing
to see reference to the various law reform groups’ proposals and consequent detail. Unfortunately many scripts
went into lengthy, detailed descriptions of the proposals to the detriment of the definitions of the current law.
As has been stated in previous reports many candidates did refer back to the quotation throughout their response to
question 2 and where it was done thoughtfully it gained appropriate credit. Unfortunately, in many instances it was
merely done mechanically without real thought or development of arguments. It is worth noting that while
candidates should refer to passages from the source materials to enhance their answer little, if any, credit will be
given to the candidate who refers to either an entire source (eg see Source 5) or a large chunk (eg see Source 5 lines
2 – 26) as part of their answer.
Question 3
The application question was, in general, well answered, with many candidates who performed poorly on question 2
improving their performance here. Question 3 incorporated the customary three separate small scenarios all worth
10 marks based on three separate characters. Candidates should have found the individual questions accessible
since each concerned different situations analogous with existing case law and in consequence gave the candidate a
direction in which to pursue the most appropriate offence the character was likely to be charged with and whether a
conviction for the offence was, or was not, possible. For level 5, candidates ought to have included appropriate case
illustration in support of application and also to have focused on the critical points evident in the scenarios. Good
discussion of the issues in relation to the most appropriate offence, with a linked case(s) cited in support, together
with a correct conclusion would allow a candidate to achieve high AO1 and AO2 marks.
The questions attracted good responses, in general, with many able candidates demonstrating both thorough
knowledge and high level application skills whilst weaker scripts showed much more limited evidence of either.
Again this is a question where the candidates could have adopted a structured and indeed mechanical approach.
This would have gained candidates higher marks. Having identified appropriate offences in each scenario (the
definitions available in the source materials) it was again the level of understanding and the quality of application of
the legal principles that was the real discriminator.
An alarming trend this series was for candidates to create and discuss alternative scenarios to those in the question,
similar to obiter statements in case law.

19. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
R v Campbell Ratio Previous Precedent Following Precedent
1991 The Courts should use the R v Guellfer R v Geddes
statutory test (MTMP) not
the older tests.
It’s up to the judge to
decide if there is evidence
to allow the attempt to go
to the jury
Mason v DPP
Need vagueness in the test.
It would not be wise to lay
down hard and fast rules
D’s conviction was quashed
R v Gullefer Ratio Previous Precedent Following Precedent
1990 Lord Lane argued that the
R v Eagleton R v Campbell
words of the Act were
aimed at charting a middle
course between the two
old tests.
In looking at whether D
had done an act which is
MTMP, they should ask DPP v Stonehouse AG’s Ref 1 of 1992
whether D had embarked (1993)
on the crime proper.
D had not done more than
preparation, as he had not
tried to get his money
back.
R v Geddes Ratio Previous Precedent Following Precedent
1996 When an attempt will
begin depends on the facts R v Campbell R v Tosti
of any case.
In deciding whether D has
committed an attempt, ask
if he has moved from
planning & preparation to R v Jones
execution & R v Dagnall
implementation.
D’s conviction was quashed
R v Guellfer
as they held that no
reasonable jury could
decide an attempt has
taken place, so judge erred

20. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
R v Jones Ratio Previous Cases Following Cases
(Kenneth) S.1(1) provides a clear test
which should be followed,
R v Eagleton
R v Geddes
1990 not the previous test of last
acts
It is a codifying statute and
so the earlier tests are no R v Guellfer
longer relevant.
Mason v DPP
D’s conviction was upheld
as although he had
committed some
R v Boyle & Boyle
preparatory acts, by
getting into the car he was
attempting to murder.
R v Whybrow Ratio Previous Cases Following Cases
The mens rea for
(Arthur attempted murder is an R v Bourdon
Obiter R v Walker and Hayes
intent to kill only.
George) 1951
This is because intent is the
key element in D’s liability
for attempted murder is
the intent to kill.
Otherwise, D is only liable
R v White R v Mohan
for wounding with attempt
to do GBH. It’s not as
illogical as it seems.
Despite the error, upheld
the conviction as no
miscarriage
R v Mohan Ratio Previous Cases Following Law
1976 To prove an attempt, D
Davey v Lee R v Khan
must have a specific intent
to commit the crime
regardless of the mens rea
required by the crime.
This means a decision to
bring about, so far as it lay Whybrow
within his power, the
commission of the alleged
attempted offence.

21. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Attorney- Ratio Previous Cases Following Cases
General’s Intent was only necessary
R v Khan Law Commission
Report 2009
Reference to the central element of
the offence, it was enough
(No 3 of 1992) that they were reckless as
to the danger to life.
Law Commission
Consultation Paper
[1994] No. 183 2007
Appeal on a point of law
following an acquittal.
R v Shivpuri Ratio
The Act created a new
Previous Law Following Law
1986 approach and D could be Haughton v Smith R v Jones
found guilty of attempting
to do the impossible.
Justified as D has done
everything in their power
to bring about the
s.1(2) & (3) Criminal
consequences.
Attempts Act 1981
In obiter, it may be Crowley & Llewellyn
possible to distinguish from Anderton v Ryan
the earlier case instead on
the grounds of mens rea.
Used the Practice
st
Statement for the 1 time

22. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
Finally, an example of an attempts essay.
This is not a full marks examples, but it does illustrate the overall approach that you should take. You
would of course need to add in links to the source!
Criminal law imposes liability on people who form the necessary mens rea for the offence but do not actually
complete the actus reus. The current definition of attempts is outlined in the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 which
states “if a person, with intent, does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the full commission of the
offence they will be guilty of attempting to commit the full offence.” The law of attempts is illustrated in the case of
White (1910). The defendant attempted to poison his mother for financial purposes. However, she died before she
took the poison of a heart attack. For public policy issues it is important that the defendant was subject to some
criminal liability because he had the guilty mind and wanted to complete the actus reus. He was found guilty of
attempted murder.
Prior to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 the law on attempts was outlined by common law. The courts used a variety
of tests to determine when somebody was guilty of an attempt. The proximity test was used firstly in Eagleton
(1855). The Law Commission favoured this particular test and it said that the person would be guilty of an attempt if
their acts were “immediately connected” to the offence. This was illustrated in the case of Robinson (1915). The
defendant was a jeweller who insured his stock and then staged a robbery hoping to claim compensation. He was
found not guilty – his acts were not “immediately connected” with the offence eg. he had not sent the claim form
away. This result caused much controversy as he had actually intended to commit the crime but did not fully
complete the actus reus. The test was criticised for being too narrowly interpreted and for being retrospective. It
was shortly afterwards discredited. The test then became known as the “Rubicon.” This was outlined in Stonehouse
(1978) which said a person was guilty of an attempt if he had passed the point of no return and “burnt his boats.”
This test was applied in Widdowson (1986) where the defendant wanted to obtain a van on hire using a false name.
He was charged with obtaining property be deception. However, his conviction was quashed as he had not sent the
form away, he had not “burnt his boats.” This test was also considered unsatisfactory. It was allowing defendants to
escape liability even though it was clear they were attempting the offence. This was putting the public and society at
risk.
The test then became known as the “series of acts.” This was introduced by Boyle and Boyle (1986). It said the
defendant’s actions should be viewed as a series of acts where the defendant would have gone on to commit a full
offence if they had not been interrupted. This was applied in Gullefer (1990). The defendant had placed a bet on a
greyhound. Seeing it was going to lose he ran onto the track to stop the race. He was found not guilty because it was
impossible to determine when an act begins and when the merely preparatory stage ends. Instead the courts said an
attempt is “where merely preparatory ends and the defendant embarks on the crime proper.” This has discredited
the series of acts test.
The case of Campbell (1991) illustrates that criminal intentions should be punished and if they are not society is put
at risk. The defendant was going to rob a post office. The courts said this was not enough for attempted robbery – he
would only be guilty when he entered the post office and approached the counter. This case illustrates the problem
with attempts and how society can be put at risk. The police, in theory, must wait until he enters to gain a
conviction. However, this is putting the public at great risk if the defendant is allowed to continue the offence. This
may result in a death which could otherwise be prevented.
The current law on attempt is outlined in the precedents case Geddes (1996). The defendant was in a boy’s toilet
armed with a rope, a knife and a bag. He was charged with false imprisonment. However, he was found not guilty.
This created two new tests. Did the defendant move from planning and preparation to implementation and
execution? The approach was applied in Tosti (1997).
The test of “more than merely preparatory” is a very risky approach. The stage at which the defendant actually
attempts a crime is unsatisfactory from a public policy issue. It puts society at risk and if the defendant believes he
will be convicted of an attempt he may as well go on to commit the offence because they possess the same
sentence. One option would be to adopt the American sentencing system which gives the defendant half of the
sentence. This would mean society would be safer. Another possible reform would be to introduce a withdrawal

23. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts
function similar to secondary parties. This would allow the defendant to withdraw from an attempt. Currently,
because they cannot withdraw they may as well commit the offence which puts society at risk. Some sectors argue
that if you have not completed the actus reus you should not be guilty of an offence. It is also difficult to impose
liability for mens rea because it can not always be discovered. Another criticism is attempting the impossible. The
case of Shivpuri (1986) allowed this but should defendants be convicted when the crime cannot be committed?
In conclusion, those who intend to commit the full offence must be subject to prosecution. If not it puts the public in
danger as in Jones (1990). However, it can be argued that if both elements of a crime are not present, a crime has
not been committed. The current law on attempts is confusing and is rigidly enforced.

24. 2012 Synoptic Paper
Attempts