Inchoate Offences: Prevention and Principal Offences

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

What is the core logic behind inchoate offences?

Punishment for completed crimes

Deterrence of principal offenders

Rehabilitation of attempted criminals

Prevention of potential harms (correct)

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

Suicide Act 1960, s2 (correct)

Criminal Attempts Act 1981

Criminal Law Act 1977

Murder Act 1965

What is the main difference between inchoate and principal offences?

Inchoate offences are more severe

Inchoate offences are only applicable in civil law

Inchoate offences are committed by multiple people

Principal offences are complete crimes, while inchoate offences are incomplete (correct)

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

Abandonment Signup and view all the answers

What is double inchoate liability?

Liability for multiple inchoate offences at once Signup and view all the answers

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

Identifying the related principal offence Signup and view all the answers

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

Recklessness Signup and view all the answers

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

Khan was followed Signup and view all the answers

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

Khan deals with possible attempts, while Pace deals with impossible attempts Signup and view all the answers

What was the outcome of R v Pace?

The court held that attempt requires ulterior MR as to circumstances Signup and view all the answers

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

When the attempt is possible Signup and view all the answers

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

There is no difference between the mental state required for the principal offence and the mental state required for attempts liability Signup and view all the answers

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

Liability is established as long as the elements for attempt are satisfied Signup and view all the answers

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

Summary only offence Signup and view all the answers

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

D must have done everything necessary to commit the principal offence Signup and view all the answers

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

It aims to capture the moment when the defendant goes beyond mere preparation to commit and embarks on commission Signup and view all the answers

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

The defendant's acts were more than merely preparatory Signup and view all the answers

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

The defendant is not liable under s46 SCA 2007 Signup and view all the answers

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

The defendant's acts were merely preparatory Signup and view all the answers

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

The defendant is not liable for attempt Signup and view all the answers

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

D must have done one of a series of acts that would constitute the commission of the principal offence Signup and view all the answers

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

The sentence mirrors the principal offence Signup and view all the answers

What was the outcome of the case R v K?

No more than merely preparatory steps were taken by D Signup and view all the answers

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

Legal impossibility refers to the situation where the commission of the offence is impossible, whereas factual impossibility refers to the situation where the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible Signup and view all the answers

What is the requirement for the mens rea of attempt?

Intention to commit the principal offence Signup and view all the answers

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

R v Shivpuri Signup and view all the answers

What is the requirement for the actus reus of attempt?

More than merely preparatory steps Signup and view all the answers

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

R v Whybrow Signup and view all the answers

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

The mens rea of attempt requires intention to commit the principal offence Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the case R v Khan?

It illustrates the principle that conditional intent counts as full ulterior intent Signup and view all the answers

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

The mens rea of attempt requires intention, whereas the mens rea of the principal offence requires recklessness Signup and view all the answers

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

It refers to the requirement for the actus reus of attempt Signup and view all the answers

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

False Signup and view all the answers

The Criminal Law Act 1977 deals with attempts.

False Signup and view all the answers

There are five types of inchoate offences.

False Signup and view all the answers

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

False Signup and view all the answers

Assisting or encouraging is a type of principal offence.

True Signup and view all the answers

Inchoate offences criminalise completed harms.

False Signup and view all the answers

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

True Signup and view all the answers

Attempt requires ulterior MR as to circumstances.

True Signup and view all the answers

Khan and Pace are contradictory decisions.

False Signup and view all the answers

R v Pace is about impossible attempts.

True Signup and view all the answers

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

False Signup and view all the answers

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

False Signup and view all the answers

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

False Signup and view all the answers

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

False Signup and view all the answers

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

True Signup and view all the answers

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

True Signup and view all the answers

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

True Signup and view all the answers

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

False Signup and view all the answers

The sentence for an attempt mirrors the principal offence.

True Signup and view all the answers

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

False Signup and view all the answers

Inchoate offences can be committed independently of a principal offence.

False Signup and view all the answers

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

True Signup and view all the answers

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

False Signup and view all the answers

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.

True Signup and view all the answers

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

False Signup and view all the answers

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

False Signup and view all the answers

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

False Signup and view all the answers

Conditional intent is not sufficient for attempted offences.

False Signup and view all the answers

Inchoate Offences: Prevention and Principal Offences

Podcast Beta

Questions and Answers

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.

More Quizzes Like This

Inchoate Offenses Quiz

CONNECTICUT Criminal Law Flashcards

Criminal Law and Corrections Overview

Penal Code Chapter 15 Quiz