Attempt - The mens Rea of Attempted Crime

The mens Rea of Attempted Crime

Intent is the essence of attempt. Only a direct and specific intent will support a conviction.

Recklessness is not a sufficient mens rea. That means that the defendant must have decided to bring about, so far as lay within their powers, the commission of the full offense. However, transferred intent applies so that if "A" intends to murder "B" with a gun, but the shot accidentally misses and kills "C", then "A" is guilty of the murder of "C" and the attempted murder of "B". Alternatively, if "A" intends merely to frighten "B", and that same shot intentionally misses "B" but accidentally kills "C", "A" may be guilty of assaulting "B" (among other things), but not attempted murder, unless "A" intended that such fright would kill "B". Whether A would be guilty of murdering "C" would depend on the specific circumstances and what "A" foresaw. The punishment for an attempt is often tied to that of the intended offense (e.g., half the fine, or half the prison time).

Under English law, R v Walker and Hayles (1990) 90 Cr. App. R. 226 deals with the issue of the power of a court to impute intention based on foresight. The defendants threw their victim from a third floor balcony and were charged with attempted murder. The judge directed the jury that they could infer intention if there was a high degree of probability that the victim would be killed and if the defendants knew "quite well that in doing that there was a high degree of probability" that the victim would be killed. The Court of Appeal did not accept that the reference to "very high degree of probability" was a misdirection, but Lloyd LJ. stated that in the rare cases where an expanded direction is required to include foresight, courts should use virtual certainty as the test, rather than high probability (see also R v Woollin 3 WLR 382 (HL)).

Recklessness will sometimes suffice for 'circumstances' of the crime. To be liable for attempted rape a defendant need not actually intend to have non-consensual intercourse, mere recklessness towards the lack of consent is enough (R v Khan). Likewise with attempted aggravated arson, recklessness towards loss of life will suffice (A-G's Reference #3 1992).