levo

Criminal Law: Preliminary Offences

Evaluating the law on attempts and proposals for reform

  • 3 things to know
  • A2 Units 3 and 4

Overview

Recall questions on criticisms of the current threshold, the proposed offence of criminal preparation, the intention required for attempted murder, the inconsistency in R v Khan, impossible attempts, and codification.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Your recallNot started
Evaluation

Why is the requirement of an intention to kill in attempted murder criticised?

Evaluation

Give one argument in favour of requiring an intention to kill for attempted murder

Evaluation

Explain the criticism that the rule in R v Khan (1990) is inconsistent.

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

  1. 1

    Give three criticisms of the more than merely preparatory test.

    Model answer

    The phrase is not defined in the Act, it leaves the question to each jury so that identical facts can produce different verdicts, and it gives the police no clear point at which to intervene.

  2. 2

    Give one argument that the current test works well.

    Model answer

    A flexible standard applied by a jury allows the law to respond to the gravity of the intended offence and the closeness of the danger, which a rigid rule could not.

  3. 3

    What reform did the Law Commission propose for the actus reus of attempt?

    Model answer

    It proposed splitting the offence in two, with attempt covering acts on the very verge of the crime and a new offence of criminal preparation covering earlier steps.

  4. 4

    Give one argument for a separate offence of criminal preparation.

    Model answer

    It would let the police intervene at an earlier and safer stage while marking the difference between preparing for a crime and beginning to commit it.

  5. 5

    Give one argument against creating a preparation offence.

    Model answer

    It would push the criminal law further towards punishing intention alone, and drawing the new line would raise the same difficulty of definition the present test has.

  6. 6

    Why is the requirement of an intention to kill in attempted murder criticised?

    Model answer

    A defendant who intends serious harm and by luck fails to kill escapes attempted murder, although the same state of mind would make them a murderer had the victim died.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.

1Closed book
2Open book
3Closed book

The 3-step method, run for you

Answer cold, learn it, then prove it stuck. Levo tracks the jump between your first attempt and your last.

Law Making in Wales and the UK
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent

Cram a whole paper in one sitting

Sort every topic into what you know and what you do not, then drill only the weak ones.

Roles v Nathan ( ).
196319411945

Blank Blitz makes facts automatic

Rapid timed gap-fills on the terms and numbers you need to recall without thinking.

AThe defendant owed the victim a duty of care and breached it.
BThe breach carried a reasonably foreseeable risk of death.
CThe breach caused the death.

Build It gets the exam shape right

Assemble a full-mark answer from its marking points, in the order an examiner wants them.

Pecuniary loss is financial and measurable.
TrueFalse

Test It catches misconceptions

Spot the fault in a statement. The traps are the mistakes students actually make.

721941163128510

Brain Breaks between sessions

Short focus games to reset attention, so the next set lands better than the last.

Every question in Criminal Law: Preliminary Offences, on a schedule.

Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.

Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.