Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:48:28.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attempts to Commit Crimes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

J. W. Cecil Turner
Get access

Extract

Now people in the street,’ said a learned judge in a modern case, ‘before they begin to think about it, is a very easy thing to say what amounts to an “attempt,” but when you come to analyse it, it becomes a little difficult.’

The text-books tell us a that at Common Law every attempt to commit any indictable crime, whether that ulterior crime be a felony or a misdemeanour, is itself a misdemeanour. Professor Sayre, of Harvard, in an article in the Harvard Law Review, has traced the growth of this rule which, he thinks, did not take its modern comprehensive form until a judgment of Lord Mansfield in 1784 in R. v. Scofield. Until that date there seems to have been no recognition of the doctrine that an attempt to commit any crime at all was itself a crime.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , July 1934 , pp. 230 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1934

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 R. v. Otborn (1919) 84 J. P. p. 63, per Rowlatt J.Google Scholar

2 E.g. Kenny, , Outlines of Criminal Law (14th ed.), p. 84.Google Scholar

3 Vol. 41, p. 821.

4 Loc. cit. at p. 834.

5 (1784) Cald. 397.

6 Per Lord Mansfield at p. 402.

7 Loc. cit. p. 826.

8 (1801) 2 East 5.

9 G. iii, 198.

10 Inst. 4.1.8.; C. 6.2.20.

11 Per Lawrence J. at p. 21.

12 Ibid.

13 Per Le Blanc J. at p. 23.

14 Cf. the American case People v. Jaffe, 185 N. Y. 497; 41 Harvard L. R. 863.

15 Note 10, ante.

16 R. v. Roberts, Deare. 539 at p. 550.

17 R. v. Brown, 63 J. P. 790.

18 Op. Cit. p. 82.

19 (7th ed.), art. 67.

20 41 Harvard L. B. p. 846.

21 R. v. Osborn (1919) 84 J. P. 63, per Kowlatt J.Google Scholar

22 R. v. Eagleton (1855) C. C. E.; 24 L. J. M. C. at p. 166.Google Scholar

23 R. v. Robinson (1915) 11 Cr. App. R. 124Google Scholar, per Reading L.C.J. at p. 129.

24 Archbold, Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Practice (28th ed.), p. 1442

25 Russell on Crimes (8th ed.), p. 145.

26 E.g. R. v. Linneker (1906) C. C. R.; 75 L. J. K. B. 385; [1906] 2 K B. 99.Google Scholar

27 See 41 Harvard L. R. pp. 837—842.

28 Draft Criminal Code, art. 74.

29 (1859) 1 F. & F. 511.

30 At p. 512.

31 (1913) 23 Cox 457, C. C. A.

32 See C. L. J. 1933, vol. v, 1, p. 62.

33 Kenny, , op. cit. p. 41.Google Scholar

34 See also Larceny Act, 1916, s. 43.

35 R. v. Taylor (1859) 1 F. & F. 511.Google Scholar

36 R. v. Scofield (1784) Cald. 397, per Lord Mansfield at p. 400.Google Scholar

37 See C. L. J. 1938, vol. v, 1, pp. 63—66.

38 11 Cr. App: K. 124; [1915] 2 K. B. 342; ante, p. 233.

39 (1855) 24 L. J. M. C. 158; Dears. 515; ante, p. 233.

40 E.g. R. v. White [1910] 2 K. B. 124.Google Scholar

41 Ante, p. 233.

42 (1915) 11 Cr. App. R. 124.

43 Jurisprudence (6th ed.), p. 346.

44 (1915) 11 Cr. App. R. 134.

45 Op. cit. p. 38.

46 Baron Bramwell asked this very question of counsel in R. v. Collins (1864) 9 Cox at p. 498.

47 R. v. Higgins (1801) 2 East 5, per Lawrence J. at p. 21.

48 R. v. Duckworth [1892] 2 Q. B. per Lord Coleridge C.J. at p. 87.

49 R. v. Cheeseman (1862) 31 L. J. M. C. at p. 90, per Blackburn J.Google Scholar

50 R. v. Laitwood (1910) 4 Cr. App. R. 248, per Pickford J. at p. 252.Google Scholar

51 (1854) Dears, at p. 525.

52 (1855) Dears. 539.

53 At p. 551.

54 R. v. Higgins (1801) 2 East at p. 20Google Scholar, per Grose J.; R. v. Meredith (1838) 8 C. & P. 589.Google Scholar

55 (1870) C. C. R.; 11 Cox 570.

56 (1915) 11 Cr. App. R. 111.

57 R. v. Waite [1892] 2 Q. B. 600.Google Scholar

58 See dicta in R. v. Williams [1893] 1 Q. B. 320.Google Scholar

59 See, for example, 41 Harvard L. R. pp. 848—850.

60 R. v. Osborn (1919) 84 J. P. 63, per Rowlatt J.Google Scholar

61 (1867) 1 D. & B. 197; 7 Cox 281.

62 (1864) 33 L. J. M. C. 177; 9 Cox 497.

63 E.g. Kenny, , op. cit. p. 83;Google ScholarArchbold, , op. cit. p. 1443.Google Scholar

64 (1889) C. C. R.; 59 L. J. M. C. 47; 24 Q. B. D. 357; 16 Cox 715.

65 (1892) C. C. R.; 61 L. J. M. C. 116; 17 Cox 491.

66 E.g. Pritchard'e Quarter Sessions Practice (2nd ed.), p. 900, Appendix D.

67 E.g. Kenny, , op. cit. (10th ed.), p. 82Google Scholar, Note A; Stephen, , op. cit. p. 53, Illustration (11).Google Scholar

68 7 Cox at p. 386, per Bramwell B.

69 1 D. & B. per Cockburn C.J. at p. 203.

70 7 Cox, per Coleridge J. at p. 284.

71 Cox at p. 284.

72 7 Cox at p. 284.

73 1 D. & B. at p. 201.

74 7 Cox at pp. 284-5, per Willes J.

75 (1864) 33 L. J. M. C. 177; 9 Cox 497.

76 33 L. J. M. C. at p. 178, per cockburn C.J.

77 (1889) 59 L. J. M. C. 47.

78 See 16 Cox at p. 717.

79 24 Q. B. D. per Lord Coleridge C.J. at p. 359.

80 (1892) 61 L. J. M. C. 116; 17 Cox 491.

81 (1899) 63 J. P. 790, per Darling J.

82 (1919) 84 J. P. 63, per Rowlatt J.

83 R. v. Hensler (1870) 11 Cox 570; R. v. Light (1915) 11 Cr. App. R. 111.

84 R. v. White (1910) 2 K. B. 124.Google Scholar

85 Note 80,ante.

86 (1919) 84 J. P. per Rowlatt J. at pp. 63, 64.

87 (1902) 170 Mo. 633; 71 S. W. 175; 41 Harvard L. R. p. 851.