Inchoate Offences: Prevention and Principal Offences

What is the core logic behind inchoate offences?

What is the exception to the rule that inchoate offences must be connected to a principal offence?

What is the main difference between inchoate and principal offences?

Which of the following is NOT a type of inchoate offence?

What is double inchoate liability?

What is the main requirement for identifying potential liability for an inchoate offence?

In relation to attendant circumstances, what is the required mental state for attempts liability?

What was the court's decision in AG's Reference (No 3 of 1992)?

What is the main distinction between the Khan and Pace cases?

What was the outcome of R v Pace?

In what circumstances does the court's decision in Khan apply?

What is the key difference between the mental state required for the principal offence and the mental state required for attempts liability?

What is the outcome of attempting to commit an offence if the reason for not succeeding is irrelevant?

Which type of offence cannot be committed by attempt unless the statute provides for it?

What is the approach of the last act test in common law?

What is the significance of the point of 'more than merely preparatory' in the Criminal Attempts Act 1981?

What was the outcome of the case R v Jones in relation to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981?

What is the outcome of assisting or encouraging with a belief that one or more of a range of offences will be committed?

What is the significance of the case R v Gullefer in relation to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981?

What is the outcome of attempting to commit an offence that is structurally impossible, such as manslaughter?

What is the approach of the series of acts test in common law?

What is the significance of the sentence for attempt in relation to the principal offence?

What was the outcome of the case R v K?

What is the difference between legal impossibility and factual impossibility in the context of attempts?

What is the requirement for the mens rea of attempt?

What is the case that established that impossible attempts are indeed possible?

What is the requirement for the actus reus of attempt?

What is the case that illustrates the importance of intention in the context of attempts?

What is the principle that applies to the mens rea of attempt?

What is the significance of the case R v Khan?

What is the difference between the mens rea of attempt and the mens rea of the principal offence?

What is the significance of the phrase 'more than merely preparatory' in the context of attempts?

Inchoate offences can be committed on their own without being connected to a principal offence.

The Criminal Law Act 1977 deals with attempts.

There are five types of inchoate offences.

Double inchoate liability means being liable for multiple principal offences at once.

Assisting or encouraging is a type of principal offence.

Inchoate offences criminalise completed harms.

In relation to attendant circumstances, recklessness is sufficient mental state for attempts liability.

Attempt requires ulterior MR as to circumstances.

Khan and Pace are contradictory decisions.

R v Pace is about impossible attempts.

The MR for attempts liability is always identical to the MR for the principal offence.

The case of R v Khan only applies to impossible attempts.

A person can attempt to assist or encourage an offence if they believe it will be committed.

Attempting to commit a summary only offence is always possible under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

The series of acts test criminalises at a very early stage of the commission of an offence.

The last act test only allows for attempt liability where a person has completed all acts necessary to commit the principal offence.

The Criminal Attempts Act 1981 stipulates that the conduct must be more than merely preparatory to attempt an offence.

A person can be liable for attempting to commit an offence that is structurally impossible, such as manslaughter.

The sentence for an attempt mirrors the principal offence.

The R v Jones case illustrates the importance of intention in the context of attempts.

Inchoate offences can be committed independently of a principal offence.

The mens rea required for an attempt is the same as the mens rea required for the principal offence.

In R v Dagnall, the court held that D's acts were merely preparatory.

A person can be guilty of attempting to commit an offence even if the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible due to legal impossibility.

The Anderton v Ryan case established that impossible attempts are not punishable.

The mens rea of attempt requires recklessness as to the principal offence.

R v Whybrow established that intention to cause GBH is sufficient for attempted murder.

Conditional intent is not sufficient for attempted offences.

The ulterior mens rea of attempt can be different from the mens rea of the principal offence.

R v K held that the defendant's acts were more than merely preparatory.

The actus reus of attempt requires a result.

Factual impossibility is a defence to attempt liability.