Inchoate offences and participation: attempts under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (the more than merely preparatory act and intention), and secondary liability for those who aid, abet, counsel or procure the principal offence.

What this dot point is asking

This dot point covers how liability extends beyond the completed offence: to attempts (an inchoate offence) and to secondary parties who assist or encourage the principal. You need the actus reus and mens rea of attempt under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, the rule on impossible attempts, and the four ways of being a secondary party (aid, abet, counsel, procure) with the required mens rea. WJEC tests application to scenarios involving incomplete crimes and accomplices.

The answer

Attempts: actus reus

Whether an act is more than merely preparatory is a question of fact for the jury. In R v Geddes a man found in a school toilet with materials to restrain a child had not gone beyond preparation, because he had not embarked on the offence proper; in R v Jones pointing a loaded gun at the victim was more than merely preparatory; R v Gullefer confirms the test focuses on whether the defendant had moved from preparation to execution.

Attempts: mens rea and impossibility

Secondary participation

A secondary party (accessory) is one who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence by the principal (Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 for indictable offences), and is tried and punished as a principal. The four conduct elements are: aiding (helping at the scene), abetting (encouraging at the scene), counselling (advising or encouraging beforehand), and procuring (bringing about the offence, Attorney General's Reference No 1 of 1975, where lacing a driver's drink procured the drink-driving). The mens rea is an intention to assist or encourage and knowledge of the essential matters of the principal offence (R v Bainbridge; NCB v Gamble). The Supreme Court in R v Jogee abolished "parasitic accessory liability" and restored intention, rather than mere foresight, as the proper test.

Examples in context

The attempt cases mark the line between preparation and execution. In R v Geddes the defendant had everything ready to abduct a child but had not yet approached one, so he was still merely preparing and was acquitted of attempt; by contrast, in R v Jones the defendant had got into the victim's car and pointed a loaded gun, which the jury could find was more than merely preparatory. R v Shivpuri shows that impossibility is no bar: a defendant who believed he was dealing with prohibited drugs was guilty of attempt even though the substance turned out to be harmless, because he intended to commit the offence. On participation, Attorney General's Reference No 1 of 1975 illustrates procuring: secretly lacing a driver's drink so that he committed a drink-driving offence made the defendant a procurer, tried as a principal, even though he did nothing at the scene and the driver was unaware.

Try this

Q1. State the actus reus and mens rea of a criminal attempt. [2 marks]

• Cue. An act more than merely preparatory to an offence, with intent to commit that offence (Criminal Attempts Act 1981).

Q2. Name the four ways of being a secondary party. [4 marks]

• Cue. Aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring the principal offence.

Q3. Explain the law on attempts and on secondary participation in crime. [12 marks]

• What the marker wants. Attempt (the more than merely preparatory act, intention, and impossibility) and secondary liability (the four conduct elements and the mens rea, with R v Jogee), supported by cases.