Miss Hart
2011-12

Synoptic
Paper 2012
Attempts

Starter:

It’s domino time!
Use the dominoes to demonstrate your understanding of the key topic!

... And you have 10 minutes to
complete it!

So what’s this paper all about?

This paper is focused on pulling
your knowledge of AS and A2
together to evaluate, apply and
explore one area of the law.

You will have the synoptic booklet
in the exam.

The majority of the marks are

AO2
You must use the source booklet in
support of each of your arguments
or application.

Question One It will be on the importance or significance of
one of these eight cases...
12 marks AO2 + 4 marks
AO1 R v Campbell (1991) 93 Cr App Rep 350 15
R v Guellefer [1990] 3 All ER 882 minutes
R v Geddes [1996] 160 JP 697
R v Jones (Kenneth) [1990] 3 All ER 886
What do you have to R v Whybrow (Arthur George) (1951) Cr App Rep 141 (CA)
do? R v Mohan [1976] QB 1
Identify what the critical point Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1992) [1994] 1 WLR 409
of law from the case is (using the
source)
R v Shivpuri [1987] AC 1

How far it confirms the prior
law

How far it changes the law
(with reference to at least one
Examiner’s Tip:
other case).
Aim to explain three critical points about
the case in question, and relating it to a
significant case.

Sample Question:
1. Explain the significance of R v Campbell [source 1, lines 22-26] to the development of the
law on attempts [16]

The Court of Appeal allowed D’s appeal This approach to the law was followed by the
quashing his conviction for attempted robbery Court of Appeal in R v Geddes [Source 2, lines
as it alleged that an attempt had yet to be 12-14], who confirmed that D must have
committed [source 1, lines 23-4] as he had yet moved from planning and preparation to
to enter the post office, and so his acts were execution or implementation to have met the
not more than merely preparatory, which was test under the Act. The Law Commission had
the required test under the Criminal Attempts proposed a new offence of criminal
Act 1981 s.1. They confirmed that this was the preparation which would probably have
right test, and the prior tests e.g. Proximity included actions such as Campbell’s and
were not necessary. The trial judge had provide a more just outcome.
referred to these tests, and so D’s conviction
was quashed.

This conclusion may be unfair to the police, Campbell, therefore, is significant in that it
who believed that D was about to commit a confirms that the judge must focus on the test
robbery and would seem to hamper their under the 1981 Act, even though this may
powers to protect the public. However, it is make the law on attempts less effective to
consistent with the court’s approach in R v enforce as the police would have to wait for
Guellfer which said that the starting point the defendant to actually try and rob the post
must be the words of the act, and whether D office to be liable.
had embarked on the crime proper.

Question Two Examiner’s Tip:
Focus on balance and
34 marks (16 AO2 + 14 AO1 + 4 AO3) reason in your
answer, and make sure
to identify the point of
the question in your
It will be a question on attempts, and will use a quotation introduction
from one of the sources as a start. You should start your
response by putting this quote into context: what is the You also need to be
source arguing? Why are they arguing it? accurate and precise in
your use of the source
You will need to look at what the law under the Criminal material.
Attempts Act 1981 is, and the difficulties that the judges
have had in clarifying and interpreting this law.

Really you are looking at whether the development of the
law has been reasoned and consistent, or subject to
change.
Time:
The quote will identify a theme to focus on, and you 35 minutes
should be referring back to this throughout. (technically)
around 50
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:

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 [34]

Student task:
Look back at your essay on attempts.
 How many cases did you use?
 How many cases which are not in the sources did you refer to?
 Did you refer to the legal principle in each case, or just the facts?
 Did you refer to a range of sources?
 Did you link your extracts from the sources to your point, or did you just extract
the information?
 Were you balanced in your approach?

Looking at your essay, identify
your ABC
Absolutely fantastic thing you
have done.

Better if you did...

Confidence with this style of
question

Question Three
Examiner’s Tip:
30 marks (10 AO1 + 20 AO2)
You should be able to
identify at least three
points of application plus a
This will consist of three short problem questions case for each high for
to which you need to identify the relevant aspects marks
of law, and then apply it to the situation coming to
a sensible conclusion. There will be at least one
critical point (this the bit
Remember that most of the relevant definitions of law which jumps out at
will be the sources ... you when you read the
question!) but you will
And you will need to start with s.1(1) need to also identify at
Criminal Attempts Act 1981 least two other points.

Time:
25 minutes
I suggest that you tackle these first....

Example problem: Your answer:
Remember: there’d be three in the real thing!

Discuss whether a conviction
for attempts would be
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]

The synoptic paper aims to bring together your AS and A2 learning.

Precedent means...

Ratio decidendi....

Practice Statement...

Material facts...

Can you identify any cases in this
area which you could use to
illustrate any of these rules?

On your post it..
1. One thing you have learnt this lesson.

1. One question you have or one thing
you are still not sure of.

Starter:

Recalling your knowledge
Can you name the case and then assign it to one of the areas?

Consolidation & Practice
The aim of today is to begin looking in depth at question one, allowing you
to practice the skills and knowledge you will need to demonstrate in
January.

First a challenge...
Can you name all eight of the key cases
without your booklet?

Campbell R v Mohan
Gullefer Attorney-General’s
Geddes Reference (No 3 of
R v Jones 1992)
(Kenneth) R v Shivpuri
R v Whybrow
(Arthur George)

Working in Pairs or Threes

Case Work

Produce a Case file on Write a sample response to
your assigned case the following question:

This should cover: “Briefly explain the importance of the
Brief facts & which court heard it case of to the
The area or question being addressed development of the law on attempts”
by the court
Which sources it links to
Which cases it links to
 How it links to the cases
What the court decided (the ratio not
the outcome
The effect of this decision on D

Peer Feedback
Take a look at the response of
one of the other groups.

Compare it to the sample
answer on Campbell

In your pairs, add a comment
to the bottom of their
response.

A great answer because...

Better if...

How confident should they
be with their understanding?

Homework
Please complete a written answer to the following question:

“Explain the significance to the law on attempts of the case of R v Shivpuri [source
5, line 14]” [16]

Due 25th November 2011

Starter:
Have you become familiar with sources
yet?!
1. Where will you find the definition of an attempt? Source 1, Line 10-13

2. Which two sources discuss the case of R v Geddes Source 1, lines 31-33 & Source 2

3. Where will you find the facts of R v Shivpuri? Source 5, Line 14-18

4. Which case is followed in R v Jones (Kenneth) R v Gullefer

5. Which two cases discuss the problems of the mens
Sources 4 and 5
rea and attempts
6. Where will you find the problems of attempted theft Source 6, Lines 29-34
discussed?
7. Which two sources identify the role of the jury in Source 3, Lines 9-11 & Source
determining an attempt. 1, lines 17-21
8. Which two sources mention the court’s use of the Source 6, line 21 &
literal rule in interpreting the Criminal Attempts Act 1981? Source 3, line 8

Intro:
How well do you know Attempts?

Using your own knowledge complete
the sheet to show your AO1
understanding of the topic.

Remember:
You can ask if you are not sure!
Your answers should be concise,
summarised notes.

How confident are you with the first
source?

Complete the task sheet
to demonstrate your
understanding.

Importance of the case and the source:
This is one of the eight key cases, and so we need to stop a moment and look at it in a little more detail.

Step One: Find evidence from the source for each of the following:

Importance of
the statutory
test

Importance of
Role of the evidence in
judge determining
MR
Rv
Geddes

Getting ready Link to
is not enough Guellfer ... Step two:
Complete the
sheet!

Feedback on Shivpuri responses

Introduction:

Mix and match the key case cards.
These will give you a plan for any question 1 in the exam

Homework
Rewrite Shivpuri to improve your grade:

Friday 9th September

Reminder: Involuntary DRAG next Fri!

Starter:
Can you name the case?

R v Jones

R v Geddes

R v Whybrow

... Again this is a key case
Start by completing the cloze to understand the key issues of the case

The basis of D’s appeal was the pre-Act case of . He argued that this should be
used by the court to interpret the phrase MTMP, as it had been the law for a long time before. This
means that he would not be liable as he had not

However, the Court made it clear that the start of any interpretation are the which
were intended to clear up all the mess which existed before.

Because of in the CA’s use of the pre-Act tests to determine MTMP, the Court
had to chose between the earlier case of , which had applied the series of
acts test, and which had said that the only thing that was important
were the words of the Act themselves.

inconsistency words of the Act
Boyle and Boyle Guellfer

Eagleton Cocked the gun and pulled the trigger...
Step two:
Complete the
sheet!

Homework
Remember that you will have a mock G154 exam in your last lesson next week.

You also need to produce an answer to the following exam question:

“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.

Starter
Using the sources, decide whether each of the following
statements is true or false, and find the line numbers to back it
up!

1. D is not liable for attempted theft if he takes an
umbrella he thinks is not his, but actually is.
Source 6, lines 29-32

2. Jones applies the literal rule in interpreting s.1(1)
Criminal Attempts Act 1981
Source 3, line 8

3. A terrorist who shoots someone in the kneecaps, and
they later die, is guilty of attempted murder
Source 5, lines 3-8

4. The judge has the only power in deciding whether or
not D has committed an offence
Source 1, lines 15-17 etc.

5. One reform to the law would be to have the same mens
rea for the full offence, as the attempted offence
Source 5, lines 44-46

Thinking:

What crime is impossible
to attempt?

Applying the law...
Liable? Why?
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.

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.

Janine wants to kill James. She decides to
drive down the road, knowing that James always
crosses the road to the newsagent at precisely
7.15 each morning. However, she has too many
points on her licence and sticks to the speed
limit. Unknown to Janine, James is ill and so
never comes out.

Proposal and issues

Current General Approach

One issue...

Proposal...

Problems… problems… problems!
Discuss whether a conviction for attempts would
be possible in each of the following situations:
3 Applied points
At least one other case a) Greg and Hans are found in the garden of a
Conclusion house with masks, a torch and screwdrivers in
Link to source their pockets. They admit they intended to
10 marks each burgle the house. Unfortunately, unknown to
AO1 and AO2 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.

c) 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.

Exemplar Answer:
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- Student Task
13). By putting the poison in the drink, Connor is clearly
performing a more than preparatory act as he has
1. Take two
“begun to carry out the commission of the offence”
(source 2, line 22). This is similar to the case of White, colours, and
where D was convicted of attempted murder for highlight the
poisoning his mother’s drink, in spite of the fact that AO1 in one and
she died of an unrelated heart attack. the AO2 in the
other.
In addition, under the law as confirmed in Whybrow, 2. Remember the
where D electrocuted his wife (Source 4, lines 1-7) the
checklist?
mens rea for attempted murder is the intent to kill
only. Connor clearly has the mens rea and so appears to Annotate the
be liable. exemplar to
show evidence
Although the completed offence is impossible, as the of each!
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

Practice what you preach!

Answer one of the other
problems…
Greg & Hans Amir
 Recognise that the offence would be
Recognise that Greg and Hans clearly attempted GBH due to the disfiguring of
intend to burgle which is enough for Blake
mens rea under the act (Mohan)  Recognise that by buying the acid he is
Recognise that their acts may be only committing a preparatory act
preparatory (Geddes, Jones, Tosti) and (Jones, Geddes)
 Discuss whether by driving to Blake’s
discuss whether they have begun the house he has done an act which is more
commission of the offence (Campbell) than merely preparatory (Jones, Guellfer)
Recognise that the crime is factually  Recognise that the plan and the intention
impossible (Shivpuri) but they may still to throw the acid may consitute a desire
be liable to bring about the conseqences (Mohan)
 Recognise that his decision to ‘abort’ the
attempt will not relieve him of liability
Credit reference to the source
Credit conclusion Credit reference to the source
Credit conclusion

Today:

Mock exam

1 hour 30 minutes
Order to answer: A, C, B
Question How long? Timing
A 15 minutes
C 25 minutes
B 50 minutes

Mens Rea of Attempts:

Show your understanding!
According to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 D is required to intend
the full offence to be liable for the attempted offence. This was confirmed in the
case of Mohan where they held that it amounted to a true desire to bring
about the consequences, as confirmed in Source 5 , lines 21-23 .
attempted murder
For the crime of D must intend to kill whereas for murder
an intention to Cause GBH is sufficient. However, D may have a direct or
oblique intent, as confirmed in the case of Walker & Hayes.

In addition, some crimes require more than one element of Mens rea .
For these offences, the Court of Appeal appears to have decided that although D
must still intend the main event, they can be reckless to the circumstances
or consequences of the crime. This is inconsistent with the general rules.

One consequence of the severe approach to mens rea in attempts is that there
are some crimes which become completely impossible to even attempt, such as
Involuntary manslaughter .

Let’s look at the impossible
Put the following into the correct time order to summarise the
development of the law in this area.
*put those convicted above the arrow, and those acquitted below*

Haughton v Crossley v
Taafe R v Jones
Smith Llewellyn

Anderton v Ryan R v Shivpuri

Criminal
Attempts Act
1981

Timed challenge of the lesson:

Answer the following problem question
Mark Scheme
Sarah picks up Louise’s bag intending
to steal her purse. However, Louise Recognise that her acts are clearly more
than merely preparatory (Geddes, Jones, Tosti)
has taken it out and there is only a and explain that by going into the bag, she is
diamond necklace in there. Sarah clearly beginning the commission of the
puts the bag back. She is charged offence (Campbell)
with attempted theft.  Recognise that Sarah clearly has an intent
to steal which may be enough (Mohan).
 Recognise that her intent is conditional
What do you know about answering (Husseyn) and may rely on the correct charge
the question? being advanced by the CPS (AG’s ref no 1 and
2 of 1979)
Recognise that the crime is factually
impossible (Shivpuri) but she may still be liable

Credit reference to the sources
Credit conclusion

On your post it..
1. One thing you are confident with.

1. One question you have or one thing
you are still not sure of.

Card Sort Time!
Match the case... the ratio...

Now put them into the three
areas!

Mens Rea of Attempts: Forget the cases...

What is it?
What’s the rule?

General Rule:

Areas of issue:

Attempted Offences with Property
Murder: more than one offences
element of MR

Includes?

Mocks
Yes, it’s how to write them

General feedback on the mocks:

 liable not guilty
 Do you actually know your
sources?
 Do you know your cases?
 Focus on the attempt, not the
full offence
 Evaluate your cases
 Use detail and argument in
your essays
 Analyse don’t explain
 Use the words of the
question in your evaluation.

Starter:

10 Minutes, 10 Answers.
1. Where will you find the approach of the common law on
attempting to do the impossible?

2. Identify two sources which discuss the meaning of ‘more than
merely preparatory’?

3. Which sources discusses reform to the current law on attempts?

4. Where will you fine the facts of Jones?

5. Where will you find the reason for criminalising attempts?

6. Where will you find reference to the role of the jury in attempts?

7. Name one case from the sources which reverses the decision of
the lower court.

8. Which two sources mention the case of Guellfer?

9. Which source[s] discuss the problem of ‘preparatory acts’?

10.Identify two problems with the current law on attempts.

Today’s Focus:

The Case Study
Two minutes...
WITHOUT the handout

1. Name all the cases which you must know:
2. Which source(s) are they all in?
3. List them from your most confident to your least!

What can you tell me about the
requirements of question one?

Our Model Answer:
Explain the significance of AG’s Ref No 3 of 1992 to
the development of the law on attempts.
Notes
Find the source it is in, and
Stage One:
look for useful information.

Make sure you are clear on the
Stage Two: decision of the court in the
case, and their reasons.

Stage Now... think how this might relate
to an earlier case. What did it
Three: decide? Are the cases consistent?

Think about what comes after. Is
Stage Four: there a case or report which
links to this? Are they consistent?

So, was it significant or not
Stage Five:
and why?

What will your answer look like?

Miss Hart’s paragraph one:
Attorney-General’s Reference No 1 of 1993
reversed the decision of the lower courts,
holding that as a point of law D’s recklessness
as to the endangerment to human life caused
by throwing the fireball was sufficient as he
intended the central element of the offence
(the criminal damage). This seems to move
away from a strict reading of the act, as it
only uses the word ‘intent’ in reference to
the mens rea.

1. What is good about this first paragraph?
2. What could you improve?

Practice what you preach!
Briefly explain the importance of R v
Mohan to the development of the law
of attempts.

10 minutes to plan...
You can use each other, your source book and
even Miss H to help with your plan!

15 minutes to write up.

Briefly explain the importance of R v Mohan to the development of
the law of attempts.

Notes
Find the source it is in, and
Stage One:
look for useful information.

Make sure you are clear on the
Stage Two: decision of the court in the
case, and their reasons.

Stage Now... think how this might relate
to an earlier case. What did it
Three: decide? Are the cases consistent?

Think about what comes after. Is
Stage Four: there a case or report which
links to this? Are they consistent?

So, was it significant or not
Stage Five:
and why?

Examiner’s Mark Scheme
Swap your work with the
CP1 Discuss the significance of the case – Mohan made it person next to you
clear that intention was the mens rea for an
attempt, confirming the words of the Act, and defined an You should write CP, AP, LC in
intention as a decision to bring about so far as it lay within his the margin where that person
power the commission of the offence. has referred to that point.

AP1 Recognise the major issue in the case – that D’s appeal To receive the full marks, they
against conviction for attempted GBH by wanton driving must have mentioned the
succeeded as the judge had incorrectly instructed the jury by CP, discussed two APs, have at
referring to recklessness and not using intent. least one LC and a conclusion
using the key words
AP2 Identify that the interpretation is in line with the
definition of intention in the criminal law and confirms that Simple really!
recklessness is not sufficient, confirming the obiter of the
courts in Davey v Lee.
 Finally, you need to A & B
AP3 Discuss the development of the approach in cases with them!
more than one element, such as Khan or Attorney General
Reference No. 3 of 1992

AP4 Consider any other relevant point

LC Link to any other relevant case eg Khan; AGs Ref Np 3 of
1992; Davey v Lee etc.

Did it help?
How confident are you on the skills needed to
produce a successful question one & three?
As you leave, put your name on the
arrow, at the point which you think sums
you up!

Not at all
Very
confident
confident

Each of the statements will appear for 20 seconds

You need to say true or false!
... and find the evidence!

Source five
Source finalcan not
The The law Law
The three takes
courts on
You cannotcase the
suggests that on
AG’s key No.3 of
The Ref attempt
Mohan’s literal to
Commission report
use the conviction
attempting tests
Mason tried do
the old to
the1992of attempts
law on MRabout
to commit fine
AR is is a
theunder any is
suggested to
approach no
drive drunk
was upheld.
impossible
conditional intent.
summary offence
andis Geddes. of
in no need
settled and clear.
circumstances.
interpretation
reforms.
reform.

Today we are going to look at and
Essays write some of the smaller sections
of the essay.

The aim is to write an effective
section which demonstrates
effective understanding of the
requirements.

“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

Challenge one: Write the introduction. (5 mins)

Actus Reus
Task One:
Name the case

He was only trying to ged his money You really aren’t going to like this.
back!
Will they have acted on it?
School toilets can be dangerous
Only an eagle eye would have
Can you be a drunk driver without spotted the bread was lighter.
being in the car?
 Their skills in hole making might
Stone me! He’s alive! come in handy for a prison break.

Developing your response
Sources?
Complete the paragraph
Own cases?
The actus reus of attempts is...
Key cases?
This comes from...

It needed to be brought in because...

However, it remained a problem because...

This has led to...

The main case on this area is...

Where...

The question for the law is...

According to the case of...

The approach of the courts is...

The next step?
What came before? “consistency”

Half of you will complete before,
half after. How has the law developed
since?
Task:
Swap the answers and read then
discuss.

Reforms
How many problems with the Which of these were addressed in
law on attempts can you the consultation?
identify?

What did they propose?

Do you agree? Why? Why not?

You now have 20 minutes to produce an answer
to the following statement:

“The current law on attempts
works effectively and is in no
need of reform”

Hint: pick two or three points and discuss them in detail!

Can you translate the student speak into proper
phrases or arguments?

Attempts is when D tries to do something and doesn’t.

In Geddes he got off because he didn’t go near a student.

If you try to kill a person who isn’t dead you are still guilty.

Finally:
How many do you know?
1. The definition of an attempt

2. The Act which criminalises attempts

3. Which case made it clear that attempting to do
impossible is an offence.

4. The mens rea for attempted murder

5. The meaning of conditional intent

6. Why attempts are criminalised Stickers require
perfection!
7. Two limitations to the law on attempts

8. Two proposed reforms to the law on attempts

9. Which of the above can be found in the sources!

10. ... And where those would be 

Extension

Problem questions...
No problem!
a) Meg is angry at Steven for cheating on her with her
sister. She confronts him at work and fires a gun at
Task: him, intending to scare him. She hits him in the knee.
She is charged with attempted murder

Look at the question from b) Brian wants to burgle the Christmas to ensure he has
last week & your mocks last enough presents for his family. He has a lock pick and
a hammer on him. PC Steve, who is walking past the
week. house, sees Brian bent over looking at the lock and
arrests Brian for attempted burglary.
Identify your targets (things
c) Sebastian and James are rival shop owners who are
you must do to be brilliant!) feuding over customers. Sebastian believes that James
and pop them on the post-it. is stealing his customers, and fed up, wants to stop
James. He decides to throw a lit brick at James’ shop,
Now, look at the following hoping that the damage will stop him opening. He
misses and it bounces off a nearby wall. Unknown to
three questions: 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.

Student task:
You have been given one of the problems, plan and produce a
full marks response to it.

Now, swap your response with another
member of the class, who has completed the
other question and mark the answer.

Remember: CP + 2AP+ LC + Con = Success!

Do you know how to construct
the answer to question one?

On the paper in front of you are the
answers to three cases, (Geddes,
Jones, Campbell) but they are all
mixed up.

Can you reconstruct the answers, and
put them in the right order?*

*as a little bit more of a challenge, all of the defendants
are referred to as D!

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Plus de Miss Hart

Plus de Miss Hart (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)