LAW5001 Chap.7 Criminal Attempts
Criminal Attempts
Criminal Attempts examines liability where the principal offence is incomplete. The Reading Guide makes the statute paramount and separates actus reus, mens rea, voluntary desistance and impossibility. A sound answer names the intended principal offence, states the attempt conduct threshold, analyses the specific intention and explains why completion failed.
Planning evidence may prove intention without crossing the actus reus line.
What this chapter covers
- 01
The statutory provisions governing attempt liability
- 02
The boundary between preparation and attempt conduct
- 03
The intention required for the intended principal offence
- 04
Attempted rape and its specific statutory treatment
- 05
Voluntary desistance after or before the threshold
- 06
Impossibility and the accused belief about the facts
Worked example · free
Preparation, entry and interruption
- 1Name the intended principal offence and the elements Lena must intend.
- 1Apply the statutory conduct threshold to the code, door and entry.
- 1Infer intention from preparation and scene conduct without treating it as automatic.
- 2Analyse desistance and the effect of the alarm under the assigned authority.
- 1Consider whether burglary is already complete and rank the liabilities.
Key terms
- Principal offence
- The completed offence the accused is alleged to have intended when attempt liability is considered.
- Preparatory conduct
- Planning or preliminary action that may evidence intention but may remain short of the statutory attempt threshold.
- Attempt conduct
- Conduct satisfying the threshold imposed by the governing attempt provision even though the principal offence is incomplete.
- Voluntary desistance
- Stopping before completion, analysed under the assigned authority and the point already reached by the conduct.
- Impossibility
- A failure to complete because facts differ from the accused belief, considered under the attempt statute and authorities.
Criminal Attempts FAQ
How can I practise locating the conduct threshold?
Number the accused acts and mark the first act said to satisfy the statutory test. Defend that choice, then move the line one act earlier and later. Comparing those alternatives exposes the legal boundary more clearly.
Does strong criminal intention prove an attempt?
No. Intention and conduct are separate requirements. Planning, equipment or words may strongly prove purpose while the accused acts still remain preparatory under the statutory threshold.
Does abandoning the plan erase liability?
Not automatically. Apply the desistance authority after deciding what conduct had already occurred and whether the attempt threshold was crossed. The reason and timing of withdrawal may matter.
Can a person attempt an impossible offence?
Impossibility has its own statutory and case treatment. State what the accused believed, what offence was intended and what conduct occurred. The absence of the expected object does not answer every element.
Why must the completed offence also be checked?
Some facts presented as an attempt may already establish another completed offence, such as burglary on entry with the required intention. Analyse completed liability before assuming every unfinished plan is only an attempt.
Exam move
Use a four-column attempt table: principal offence, intended elements, conduct performed and reason for non-completion. Populate it for interruption, remorse, factual impossibility and conduct that remains merely preparatory. Then write one sentence on the statutory threshold for each scenario. Keep voluntary desistance and impossibility separate.
When a property problem involves entry, check whether burglary is complete even though the planned theft failed. This prevents attempt from becoming a vague fallback label. Train the threshold by writing facts as a numbered sequence. Mark the first act you say satisfies the statutory conduct test and defend that choice with the provision and assigned authority.
Then move the line one act earlier and one act later, explaining why each alternative is weaker. This exercise is more useful than counting how many steps remained because it forces legal analysis of the conduct itself. Prepare a separate intention list for the principal offence. Check whether the fault required for attempt must be proved more specifically than a completed-offence pathway might suggest.
Treat tools, surveillance, words and scene conduct as evidence, not as automatic satisfaction of either limb. For desistance, record what had already happened, why the accused stopped and whether the threshold had already been crossed before applying the assigned case. For impossibility, write the accused belief about the facts beside the actual facts and keep the failure of completion distinct from absence of intention.
Always test completed liability first. Entry may complete burglary while the intended theft remains incomplete, producing different analyses from the same conduct. End every practice answer with the intended principal offence, the particular threshold act, the fault conclusion and the legally relevant reason completion failed.
Working through Criminal Attempts in LAW5001? Sia is AskSia’s AI Law tutor — ask any LAW5001 Criminal Attempts question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how LAW5001 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
