Advertisement

The Liverpool Law Review

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 109–114 | Cite as

The borderline between conditional intent and impossibility

  • M. Jefferson
Current Developments
  • 25 Downloads

Keywords

Specific Thing Conditional Intent Arrestable Crime Employment Appeal Tribunal Community Legal Order 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    (1979) 3 W.L.R. 577; 3 All E.R. 143. Hereafterthe References.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Husseyn (1977) Cr.App.R. 131 (note). Called “notorious” by Professor Smith.The Law of Theft, 4th Edition,… Butterworths, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bozickovic (1978) Crim.L.R. 686 Nottingham Crown Court, obiter.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greenhoff (1979) Crim.L.R. 108 Huddersfield Crown Court.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    In D.P.P. v.Nock (1978) A.C. at 1000 D.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    (1979) 1 W.L.R. 1169. Even before this case at least one Crown Court judge was turning againstGreenhoff: see Wynn & Salkend 21–22 February 1979 at Liverpool before H.H. Judge Bingham.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    It is interesting to note that there could be an appeal to the House of Lords under s.36(3) of the Act and that appeal need not concern a point of law of general public importance, though in practice it would presumably always do so. Moreover, it is uncertain whether a hypothetical judgment on a reference contributes a binding or persuasive precedent. It seems that prosecutors, dissatisfied withHoughton v. Smith (1975) A.C. 476, are trying to find ways of mitigating its impact by using the 1972 Act: seeAttorney-General’s Reference (No.1 of 1974) (Q.B.) 744 which distinguished Smith.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A close reading of the report reveals the name of the accused.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S.9(1)(b) of the Theft Act says “steals or attempts to steal anything” while s.9(2) covers “stealing anything.”Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    (1979) 3 W.L.R. 591 (note). Not in the All England Reports, which means that (1979) 3 All.E.R. at 153d makes little sense. The transcript is in line with the W.L.R.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    (1971) 2 Q.B. 315. A case on theft, though sometimes treated as an authority on attempt.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Supra, n.2. Husseyn (1977) Cr.App.R. 131 (note). Called “notorious” by Professor Smith.The Law of Theft, 4th Edition,… Butterworths, 1979.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    (1979) 3 W.L.R. 592 (note).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    The question will now be left for the jury, not as previously dealt with at the stage of counsel’s submission of no case to answer.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Supra, n.4Greenhoff (1979) Crim.L.R. 108 Huddersfield Crown Court.Google Scholar
  16. 18.
    (1979) 3 All.E.R. at 152g. For some possible examples see (1979) 1 LLR 94-96.Google Scholar
  17. 19.
    (1966) 1 W.L.R. 1234 (Practice Statement).Google Scholar
  18. 20.
    Who delivered the unreserved judgment of the court.Google Scholar
  19. 21.
    (1979) 3 All.E.R. 153a.Google Scholar
  20. 22.
    Supra, n.7. It is interesting to note that there could be an appeal to the House of Lords under s.36(3) of the Act and that appeal need not concern a point of law of general public importance, though in practice it would presumably always do so. Moreover, it is uncertain whether a hypothetical judgment on a reference contributes a binding or persuasive precedent. It seems that prosecutors, dissatisfied withHoughton v. Smith (1975) A.C. 476, are trying to find ways of mitigating its impact by using the 1972 Act: seeAttorney-General’s Reference (No.1 of 1974) (Q.B.) 744 which distinguished Smith.Google Scholar
  21. 23.
    Following Turner J. inDonnelly (1970) NZL R 980.Google Scholar
  22. 24.
    (1979)A.C. at 493E.Google Scholar
  23. 25.
    (1857) Dears. & B. 197.Google Scholar
  24. 26.
    (1864) Le & Ca. 471; A Cox C.C 497.Google Scholar
  25. 27.
    (1889) 24 QBD 357; 16 Cox C.C. 715.Google Scholar
  26. 28.
    (1892)61 LJMC 116; 17 Cox C.C. 491.Google Scholar
  27. 29.
    (1975) 62 Cr.App.R. 220.Google Scholar
  28. 30.
    Supra, n. 16. (1979) 1 W.L.R. 1169. Even before this case at least one Crown Court judge was turning againstGreenhoff: see Wynn & Salkend 21–22 February 1979 at Liverpool before H.H. Judge Bingham.Google Scholar
  29. 31.
    (1979) Crim.L.R. 496.Google Scholar
  30. 32.
    (1975)A.C. at 493G.Google Scholar
  31. 33.
    (1848)10 Cl & F.200.Google Scholar
  32. 35.
    (1979) 3 All.E.R. at 152c.Google Scholar
  33. 39.
    Supra, n.23. Following Turner J. inDonnelly (1970) NZL R 980.Google Scholar
  34. 40.
    (1979) 3 W.L.R. 590f.Google Scholar
  35. 41.
    See alsoBennett (1979) 68 Cr. App. R. 168 which, if it applies to attempt, means that the burden of adducing evidence that there was no spanner in the boat, sub-aqua equipment in the hold all, etc., is on the accused.Google Scholar
  36. 42.
    Cf. their report on s. 16 Theft Act 1968.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Jefferson

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations