The mens rea of attempt

Overview

Mens rea of attempt, distinction between the consequences and the circumstances of an offence and conditional intention.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

1. 1

   State the mens rea of attempt.

   Model answer

   The defendant must intend to commit the full offence, and recklessness as to the consequence is not enough.

2. 2

   What intention must be proved on a charge of attempted murder?

   Model answer

   Only an intention to kill will do, so the intention to cause grievous bodily harm that suffices for murder is not enough for the attempt.

3. 3

   Which case established that attempted murder requires an intention to kill?

   Model answer

   R v Whybrow (1951), where a man wired his wife's bath to the electricity supply and the court held that an intent to kill had to be proved.

4. 4

   Why is the mens rea of attempted murder stricter than that of murder itself?

   Model answer

   There is no death to point to, so liability rests entirely on what the defendant meant to achieve, and only an intention to kill matches the label of attempted murder.

5. 5

   Can oblique intention support a charge of attempt?

   Model answer

   Yes, the jury may find intention where the defendant appreciated that the result was a virtually certain consequence of what they set out to do.

6. 6

   Is recklessness ever sufficient for any part of an attempt?

   Model answer

   Recklessness may suffice as to a circumstance of the offence, even though intention is required as to the consequence.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.