Definition:

A person is guilty of attempting to commit an offence if, with intent to commit that offence, they do an act that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence.

Elements:

• Actus reus: An act “more than merely preparatory” to the full offence.

• Mens rea: Intention to commit the full offence (recklessness is not enough for result crimes).

Key Points:

• The act must go beyond mere preparation (R v Gullefer [1990]).

• The defendant need not complete the crime; taking a real step towards it is enough.

• For result crimes (e.g. murder), the defendant must intend the full result (R v Whybrow [1951] – intent to kill required).

• Impossibility: It can still be an attempt even if the crime was impossible (R v Shivpuri [1986] – defendant thought he was smuggling drugs but wasn’t).

Definition:

If two or more people agree to pursue a course of conduct that will necessarily involve the commission of an offence, they are guilty of conspiracy.

Elements:

• Agreement between two or more people to commit an offence.

• Intention that the agreement will be carried out.

Key Points:

• The agreement itself completes the offence; nothing needs to be done yet.

• The defendant must intend that the plan be carried out, not just discuss it (R v Walker [1962]).

• Impossibility is not a defence if the agreement would amount to an offence if possible (R v Siracusa [1990]).

• A person cannot conspire with their spouse alone or with a child under the age of criminal responsibility.

This law replaced the old offences of “aiding and abetting” with broader rules on encouraging or helping crime.

There are three offences:

• s.44: Doing an act capable of encouraging or assisting an offence, intending that it be committed.

• s.45: Doing an act capable of encouraging or assisting an offence, believing it will be committed.

• s.46: Doing an act capable of encouraging or assisting offences, believing one or more will be committed but not sure which.

Key Points:

• The act can include advice, information, or practical help.

• The offence can be committed even if the main offence never happens.

• The defendant must act intentionally or with the required belief, depending on the section.

Withdrawal: A person can avoid liability if they genuinely withdraw from the plan before the offence is attempted.

Impossibility: Still liable if the intention and steps were clear, even if completion was impossible. (see more below)

Overlapping offences: Someone may be charged with both attempt and conspiracy if evidence supports both.

Impossibility arises when a person tries or agrees to commit an offence that, unknown to them, cannot actually be completed. The law distinguishes between factual impossibility, where success is prevented by circumstances (for example, trying to steal from an empty pocket), and legal impossibility, where the act would not be a crime even if carried out. Under s.1(2)–(3) Criminal Attempts Act 1981, factual impossibility is not a defence: a person who believes they are committing a crime and takes real steps toward it is still guilty, as confirmed in R v Shivpuri [1986]. The courts focus on the defendant’s intent and belief, not the external possibility of success, ensuring criminal liability where someone deliberately acts with criminal purpose even if completion is impossible.