FlashcardsCriminal Law: Attempts, Conspiracy, and Complicity Flashcards
View Flashcards → Download as-is, or customize
to fit your needs.
About:
This 61-card flashcard set covers criminal law liability for attempts, conspiracy, and complicity under UK law. It includes statutory frameworks (Criminal Attempts Act 1981, Criminal Law Act 1977), key case law (Gullefer, Campbell, Tosti, Saik, and others), and the elements of actus reus and mens rea for each doctrine. Use it for law school exam preparation, revision of secondary liability, or self-study of complicity rules.
Terms in This Set
- Which statute creates the offence of attempting to commit a crime?
- When does D commit an attempt under S1 of the Crim Attempts Act 1981?
- To which crimes does the attempts act apply?
- Can D commit an attempt by an omission?
- What is the AR of attempts liability?
- Gullefer [1987] states what is needed by D for an act to be more than merely preparatory is...
- What meaning should be given to ‘an act that is more than merely preparatory’ ?
- Campbell [1991] - (AR too narrow case) is a an attempted robbery case, D was arrested a yard away from the door of the bank but his conviction is overturned on appeal. Why?
- Tosti [1997] is an attempted theft case, D is found checking the lock of a barn but his conviction is sound, why?
- Geddes [1996] - (an AR too narrow case) Man in boys toilets case why did the CA allow the appeal?
- K [2009] (AR too narrow case) - In K D’s appeal was allowed in a case where he asks a boy if he wants to watch pornography on a laptop in D’s office. Why was the appeal allowed?
- R [2008] a case inconsistent with K [2009] D was guilty of an attempt to arrange a sexual offence with a child (SOA 2003, s14) why?
- Why can you NOT argue that the court tends to read more than merely preparatory wider in the case of vulnerable victims?
- In Dagnall [2003] D’s appeal was dismissed for attempted rape. The case is an example of attempts liability being applied inconsistently between different offences. How?
- In the case of MS [2021] The CA agree D’s case should be retried for attempted child abduction because too much emphasis was placed on geographical proximity and say what regarding attempts as a whole.
- Also from MS on different types of crime and proximity being more relevant for determining if something is more than merely preparatory
- MS on the test for attempts in general
- Jones [1990] CA upholds conviction for attempted murder even though D was what?
- Is there routes to liability for D for an attempt where there is legal or factual impossibility?
- Which case establishes there can be no liability for attempts where there is impossibility in law?
- What does impossibility in law mean?
- Where is the impossibility (for attempts) in fact?
- What section of the CAA allows for liability for attempts despite factual impossibility?
- When applying S1(2) in cases of factual impossibility, do you take the facts objectively or subjectively?
- What case overturned the incorrect position in Anderson v Ryan [1985] and restored the law that S1(2) extends liability to all cases of factual impossibility?
- What is the MR of attempts liability
- What the the intent requirements for consequence crimes
- Because the consequence of murder is death (not GBH) despite the MR for murder possibly being to cause GBH, what intent must D posses for attempted murder. (Whybrow [1951])
- Even if the offence D intended to commit involves a mens rea of recklessness can D be guilty of an attempt if they were reckless as to the consequence?
- Khan [1990] is controversial, what did the CA hold
- Pace and Rogers [2014] Is at odds with Khan [1990] what is the rule established in Pace and Rogers that led to Ds conviction being overturned.
- How were the CA able to distinguish Khan from Pace?
- What do the CA say in Khan about the decision applying in the future
- What Act does the offence of conspiracy come from?
- Where will a person be guilty of conspiracy under CLA 1977
- What are the 6 elements of conspiracy?
- What does R v Walker [1962] say about the agreement that Ds must come to for conspiracy?
- What does R v Hussain, Bhatti and Bhatti [2002] say about the agreement that Ds come to for complicity?
- Shillam [2013] in the CA appeals were allowed for drug supply charges where the prosecution alleged that D2,3,4,...were all in conspiracy together with D1 to supply coke why'd the charge fail?
- What are the statutory exceptions where a person cannot commit conspiracy?
- What section is the statutory exception where D won't be guilty of conspiracy due to being a victim.
- What section contains the statutory exception where D will not be guilty of conspiracy due to the status of his co-conspirers
- What case says If there are others involved in the conspiracy other than just D and D1s spouse then S2(2) no longer applies?
- What does Gnango [2011] say about the victim exception
- How do u define a victim for the purpose of the conspiracy exception
- What are excluded agreements for sake of complicity - agreements that cannot attract liability?
- What case is an example that D cannot conspire to aid or abet (be an accomplice)
- ‘Necessarily amount to or involve the commission of a crime...by one of the parties’ is one of the AR elements of conspiracy. What type of agreement will not suffice for a finding of conspiracy?
- Will a conditional agreement undermine a finding of conspiracy?
- Can D commit conspiracy to an offence which is factually impossible?
- The AR of conspiracy can be satisfied on the facts as D subjectively believed them to be therefore...
- What is the MR of conspiracy?
- Do the intentions of all parties to the conspiracy have to be proven?
- Yip Chiu-Cheung [1995] is a Privy council decision illustrating what?
- Can a conditional intention satisfy the MR intention requirements for conspiracy?
- What HoL case supports the idea that all future intentions are technically conditional?
- Which section of the CLA 1977 states that Ds must intend every element of the principal offence in order to be guilty of complicity?
- What's the TLDR of S1(2) in CLA 1977
- Saik [2006] HoL say what about D1 having to intend as to circumstance crimes?
- What principal does the HoL put forward in Anderson [1986] which is to be doubted and has been ignored in subsequent case law?
- What defences apply to complicity?
How to Use This Flashcard Set
Print these flashcards for study sessions, test prep, or self-paced review. Click 'View Flashcards' to edit terms, add images, or change the layout before printing.
