1. D. Stuart ‘The Actus Reus in Attempts’(1970) Crim L Rev 505.

2. C. Howard Australian Criminal Law (4th edn, 1982) p 286.

3. State v Kudangirana 1976 (3) SA 565 at 566, per Macdonald JP (AD).

4. Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s 1(1).

5. Crimes Act 1961, s 72.

6. R v Cline [1956] OR 539 at 549, per Laidlaw JA (CA of Ont); R v Kosh [1965] 1 CCC 230(CA of Sask).

7. J. W. C. Turner, ‘Attempts to Commit Crimes’ (1935) 5 Camb LJ 230 at 235.

8. See the first case cited at n 6 supra.

9. R v Anico (1981) 63 CCC (2d) 309 at 320, per MacKinnon ACJ (CA of Ont).

10. See the first case cited at n 6, supra; cf H. Wechsler, W. K. Jones and H. L. Korn ‘The Treatment of Inchoate Crimes in the Model Penal Code of the American Law Institute’ (1961) 61 Columbia Law Review 571 at 573 where a view is expressed of attempt as ‘essentially one of criminal purpose implemented by an overt act strongly corroborative of such purpose’.

11. Criminal Code Act of Queensland 1899, s 4; Criminal Code Amendment Act of Western Australia 1913, s 4; Criminal Code Act of Tasmania 1924, s 2(1); Criminal Code of Canada 1953–1954, s 24(1); Criminal Attempts Act of England and Wales 1981, s 1(1).

12. South African law, based on Roman-Dutch antecedents, is included in the discussion because of its comparative interest.

13. State v Garrett (1882) ORC 18.

14. State v du Plessis (1981) (3) SA 382 at 398, per Corbett JA (AD).

15. R v Olhauser (1970) 11 CRNS 334 at 336, per Clement JA (SC, AD of Alberta).

16. Police v Wylie (1976) 2 NZLR 167 at 169, per Woodhouse J (CA of NZ).

17. R v Sorrell and Bondett (1978) 41 CCC (2d) 9 at 16 (CA of Ont).

18. R v Mathe (1973) 11 CCC (2d) 427 at 433, per Branca JA (CA of BC).

19. R v Cunningham (1981) 2 All ER 863.

20. Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55.

21. R v Whybrow (1951) 33 Cr App R 141; R v Loughlin [1959] Crim L R 518; R v Grimwood [1962] 2 QB 621.

22. J. C. Smith and B. Hogan Criminal Law (1978) p 247.

23. D. Stuart op cit n 1 supra.

24. R. M. Perkins Criminal Law (1957) p 498.

25. See n 11, supra.

26. Lajoie v R [1974] SCR 399 (SCC).

27. R v Ritchie [1970] 3 OR 417 at 424, per Schroeder JA (CA of Ont).

28. See, however, for the contrary view, R v Menard (1960) 130 CCC 242 (CA of Quebec); Tousignant v R (1960) 130 CCC 285 (CA of Quebec).

29. G. L. Williams Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd edn, 1961) p 619.

30. R v Murphy [1969] NZLR 959 at 960, per North P (CA of NZ).

31. R v Spartels [1953] VLR 194 at 195, per Sholl J (SC of Vict).

32. R v Zerafa [1953] St R Qd 227 at 233, per Hart AJ (CCA of Qld).

33. R v Scofield (1784) Cald 397.

34. G. L. Williams op cit 29, supra, p 619.

35. R v Ritchie [1970] 3 OR 417 at 424, per Schroeder JA (CA of Ont).

36. R v Comeau (1973) 14 CCC (2d) 472 at 489–490, per Cooper JA (SC, AD of Nov Sc).

37. R v Ross (1975) 25 CCC (2d) 545 at 549, per Hall JA (CA of Man).

38. R v Walker [1964] 2 CCC 217 at 227–229, per Tascherau J (CA of Quebec).

39. R v Ritchie, n 35, supra, at 423, per Schroeder JA (CA of Ont).

40. R v Hlatwayo [1933] TPD 441 at 444; State v Kazi 1963 (4) SA 742 at 749 (W); State v Tshwape 1964 (4) SA 327 at 331 (C).

41. R v Huebsch 1953 (2) SA 561 at 567, per Schreiner JA (AD).

42. Ibid; cf R v Botha 1959 (1) SA 547 at 551–552 (O); R v Peteradzay; 1959 (2) SA 125 at 128–129 (FC).

43. E. M. Burchell and P. M. A. Hunt South African Criminal Law and Procedure (1970) p 379; cfJ.C.de Wet and H. L. Swanepoel Die Suid-Afrikaans Strafreg (2nd edn, 1960) p 152.

44. Cawthorne v H. M. Advocate [1968] SLT 330.

45. State v Fick 1970 (4) SA 510.

46. H. L. A. Hart Punishment and Responsibility (1968) p 182.

47. State v Ntanzi 1981 (4) SA 477 at 482, per Kumbleben J (NPD).

48. F. B. Sayre ‘Criminal Attempts’ (1928) 41 Harvard L Rev 841.

49. J. F. Stephen A Digest of the Criminal Law (8th edn, 1946) p 26.

50. State v du Plessis 1981 (3) SA 382 at 398, per Corbett JA (AD).

51. D. Stuart ‘Mens Rea, Negligence and Attempts’ [1968] Crim L Rev 647 at 656.

52. R. M. Perkins op cit n 24, supra, p 498.

53. See n 43, supra.

54. H. L. A. Hart op cit n 46, supra, p 127.

55. C. Howard op cit n 2, supra, pp 290–291.

56. J. C. Smith ‘Two Problems in Criminal Attempts’ (1957) 70 Harvard L Rev 422 at 429–435; cf J. C. Smith ‘Two Problems in Criminal Attempts Re-Examined’ [1962] Crim L Rev 135 at 135–143.

57. C. Howard op cit n 2, supra, p 292.

58. Op cit, p 289.

59. Op cit, p 306.

60. Ibid.

61. Cf Edwards, J. L. J. The Criminal Degrees of Knowledge’ (1954) 12 Google Scholar Modern L Rev 294.

62. J. Hall General Principles of Criminal Law (2nd edn, 1960) p 598.

63. Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill 1972, s 120C.

64. Indian Penal Code 1860, s 300.

65. Straits Settlements Penal Code 1871, s 300.

66. Ibid.

67. Penal Code of Sri Lanka 1883, s 294.

68. See the Indian Penal Code, s. 307, which specifically refers to intention or knowledge in the context of the offence of attempted murder; cf the Penal Code of Sri Lanka, s 300.

69. American Model Penal Code 1960, s 5 01(1):

70. G. L. Williams op cit n 29, supra, p 619–620.

71. C. Howard, op cit n 2, supra, p 290.

72. Ibid.

73. Gardner v Akeroyd [1952] 2 QB 743; R v Collier [1960] Crim L Rev 204.

74. See n 21, supra.

75. See n 30, supra.

76. See n 71, supra.

77. P. Seago Criminal Law (1981) p 86; cf Codification of the Criminal Law: General Principles: The Mental Element in Crime, Working Paper of the Law Commission of England (1970); Meaning of Guilt: Strict Liability, Working Paper of the Law Reform Commission of Canada (1974).

78. J. C. Smith ‘Two Problems in Criminal Attempts Re-Examined’ n 56, supra.

79. G. L. Williams op cit n 29, supra, at 620.

80. D. Stuart op cit n 51, supra, p 662.

81. A. W. Mewett and M. Manning Canadian Criminal Law (1978) p 145.

82. See n 29, supa.

83. State v Garrett [1882] ORC 18; cf, for the law of Scotland, G. H. Gordon The Criminal Law of Scotland (1967) p 234.

84. A. W. Mewett and M. Manning op cit n 81, supra, p 143.

85. R v Kadongoro 1980 (2) SA 581 at 582, per Beadle AJ.

86. J. F. Stephen A History of the Criminal Law of England (1883) vol 2, p 221.

87. R v Roderick (1837) 7 C & P 795.

88. See n 11, supra.

89. Ibid.

90. See n 64–47, supra.

91. Johnson v Youden [1950] 1 KB 544; Ackroyds Air Travel Ltd v DPP [1950] 1 All ER 933.

94. Section 6 (1).

93. Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55 at 74, per Lord Hailsham commenting on Cunliffe v Goodman [1950] 2 KB 237.

94. Law Com Working Paper No 50, Inchoate Offences: Conspiracy, Attempt and Incitement.

95. Para 89.

96. Ibid.

97. Law Com No 102, Criminal Law: Attempts, and Impossibility in Relation to Attempt, Conspiracy and Incitement.

98. See the cases cited at nn 26 and 27, supra.

99. R v Mohan [1976] QB 1.

100. See the Report of the Law Commission, n 97, supra, para 2.14.

101. Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s l(1).

102. See the Report of the Law Commission, n 97, supra, para 2.17; but see, for a different approach, the Report of the Law Commission of England on the Mental Element in Crime, Law Com No 89 (1978).

103. See the Report of the Law Commission, n 97, supra, para 2.14.

104. Op cit, para 2.16.

105. I. Dennis ‘The Law Commission Report on Attempt and Impossibility in Relation to Attempt, Conspiracy and Incitement’ [1980] Crim L Rev 758, cf I Dennis ‘The Criminal Attempts Act’ [1982] Crim L Rev 5.

106. At p 771.

107. See n 69, supra.

108. See n 68, supra.

109. Seen 94, supra.

110. J. C. Smith and B. Hogan Criminal Law (4th edn, 1978) p 248; cf R. Cross and P. A. Jones Introduction to Criminal Law (9th edn, 1980) p 360.

111. G. L. Williams, SSC, cols 65–66 (1981).

112. See the Report of the Law Commission of England on the Mental Element in Crime, Law Corn No 89 (1978).

113. See the Report of the Law Commission, n 97, supra, para 2.15.

114. State v Perera 1978 (3) SA 523 (TPD); but see State v Naidoo 1977 (2) SA 123 (NPD).

115. C. Howard op cit n 2, supra, p 289.

116. State v Kazi 1963 (4) SA 742 at 749 (W).

117. R v de Kromme (1892) 17 Cox CC 492 at 494; cf, for Canadian law, R v Kotyszyn (1949) 95 CCC 261 (Quebec Ct of KB). See also G. L. Williams Textbook of Criminal Law (1978) p 351.

118. Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s 5(7).

119. See the Working Paper of the Law Commission, n 94, supra, para 44.

120. Ibid.

121. DPP v Nock and Alsford (1978) 67 Cr App R 116.

122. R. V. Dungey (1979) 51 CCC (2d) 86 at 98, per Dublin JA (CA of Ont).

123. Kelley, V Hart (1934) 61 CCC 364 at 370, per McGillivray JA (SC, AD of Alberta).

124. R v Cheesman (1862) 9 Cox CC 100 at 145, per Blackburn J.

125. R v Eagleton (1855) 169 ER 826 at 835, per Parke B; cf R v Cope (1921) 16 Cr App R 77 at 83; R v Woods (1930) 22 Cr App R 41 at 45; R v Bloxham (1943) 29 Cr App R 37 at 39; R v Miskell (1953) 37 Cr App R 214.

126. R v Young (1949) 94 CCC 117 at 126, per Fontaine J Sess (Montreal Ct of Sess of the Peace).

127. Crimes Act 1961, s 72(3).

158. Penal Code 1959, s 4; cf R v Ilaya Ogumogu (1944) 10 WACA 220.

129. Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill 1972, s 120 C(b).

130. R v William, ex p The Minister for Justice and A-G [1965] Qd R 86 at 99, per Stabe J (CCA of Qld).

131. R v Olhauser (1970) 11 CRNS 334 at 336, per Clement JA (SC, AD of Alberta).

132. See the case cited at n 130, supra.

133. M. Tselentis and J. H. Friedman ‘Criminal Attempt: A Reappraisal’ [1969] Responsa Meridiana 59 at 64.

134. Potica v Wylie [1976] 2 NZLR 167 at 170, per Woodhouse J (CA of NZ).

135. G. H. Gordon The Criminal Law of Scotland (1967) p 151.

136. R v Ransford (1874) 13 Cox CC9; R v Vreones [1891] 1 QB 360; R v White [1910] 2 KB 124.

137. See, however, DDP v Stonehouse [1977] 2 All ER 909 at 933, per Lord Edmund Davies; cf the ‘possible intervention’ theory according to which a locus poenitentiae is available to the accused even after commission of the last act.

138. R v Kennedy (1973) 11 CCC (2d) 263 (CA of Ont); R v Richards (1974) 2; CCC (2d) 568 (County Ct, Jud Dist of Halton, Ont); R v Whalen (1977) 34 CCC (2d) 557 (Prov Ct ofBC).

139. R v James (1970) 2 CCC (2d) 141 at 141, per Loranger J Sess (Montreal Ct of Sess of the Peace).

140. Re Munirathham Reddy AIR 1955 Andhra 118 at 122.

141. Moss and Phillips v Donohoe (1915) 20 CLR 580 (HCA); but see Berwin v Donohoe (1915) 21 CLR 1 (HCA).

142. Criminal Code of Queensland 1899, s 4.

143. Criminal Code Amendment Act of Western Australia 1913, s 4.

144. R v Nlhovo 1921 AD 485 at 501; R v Van Zyl 1942 TPD 291; R v B 1958 (1) SA 199 at 203 (AD).

145. R v Vreones [1891] 1 QB 360.

146. R v Barker [1924] NZLR 865 at 874, per Salmond J (CA of NZ).

147. R v Quinton (1947) 88 CCC 231 at 234–235, per Roach JA (CA of BC).

148. R v Duffy (1931) 57 CCC 186 at 188, per Chisholm CJ (SC of Nov Sc).

149. R v Godfrey (1974) 18 CCC (3d) 90 at 101, per Allen JA (SC AD of Alberta).

150. Ibid.

151. Crimes Act 1961 (NZ), s 72(3).

154. R v B 1958 (1) SA 199 at 220, per Schreiner JA (AD) approved in State v du Plessis 1981 (3) SA 382 at 398, per Corbett JA (AD).

153. R v Sharpe 1903 TS 868, following Commonwealth v Hicks (1889) 19 Am St Rep 892.

154. See the second case cited at n 152, supra. For the distinction between preparation and attempt, as applied in South Africa and in Zimbabwe, see further State v Francis 1981 (1) SA 230 (AD of Zimbabwe); State v Moloto 1982 (1) SA 844 (AD of SA).

155. French Penal Code, art 2.

156. Dutch Criminal Code, art 45.

157. R v Schoombie 1945 AD 541 at 547, per Watermeyer CJ; cf State v Agmat 1965 (2) SA 874 (C).

158. R v Nlhovo 1921 AD 485 at 501.

159. R v Hlatway 1933 TPD 441 at 445.

160. See the first case cited at n 157, supra.

161. R v Dugdale (1853) 118 ER 499; R v Roberts (1855) 169 ER 836.

164. R v Taylor (1859) 1 F & F 511.

163. R v Goodman (1872) 22 UCCP 338.

164. See, however, R v Button [1900] 2 QB 597; R v Laitwood (1910) 4 Cr App R 248.

165. R v Robinson [1915] 2 KB 342.

166. Corner v Bloomfield (1970) 55 Cr App R 305; cf Balogh v St Albans Crown Court [1975] QB 73. But see R v Harris (1975) 62 Cr App R 28.

167. R v Komaroni (1953) 103 L Jo 97.

168. R v Taylor (1871) 25 LT 75.

169. Carey v Martin [1954] Crim L Rev 139.

170. R v Chellingworth [1954] QWN 35 (SC of Qld); but see R v Williams [1965] Qd R 86 (SC of Qld).

171. R v Grogan (1889) 15 VLR 340 (SC of vict); cf, for the law of New South Wales, R v Wright (1879) 2 SCR (NSW)(NS)(L) 110 (SC of NSW).

172. R v Kopi-Kame [1965–1966] P & NGLR 73 (SC of P-NG); cf R v Joseph-Kurt [1965–19661 P & NGLR 161 (SC of P-NG).

173. R v Henderson [1948] SCR 226 (SCC); R v Young (1949) 94 CCC 117 (SC of Quebec).

174. See, for example, R v Lawson [1959] Crim L Rev 134; R v Mills [1963] 1 QB 522.

175. R v Gurmit Singh [1966] 2 QB 53.

176. See, however, Gardner v Akeroyd [1952] 2 QB 743 at 751 where the statutory offence of preparation was criticised as ‘vague and unsatisfactory’.

177. American Model Penal Code 1960, s 5.01.

178. Section 53.

179. See n 94, supra.

180. G. L. Williams op cit n 29, supra, pp 631 ad fin.

181. Ibid.

184. R v Osborne (1920) 84 JP 63.

183. Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s l(1).

184. Law Com No 102, para 2.39.

185. 419 HL Official Report (5th series) and Col 763 (1980–1981).

186. Law Com No 102, para 2.45.

187. F. B. Sayre op cit n 48, supra, p 843.

188. Haughton v Smith [1975] AC 476 at 499, per Lord Reid; DPP v Stonehouse [1978] AC 55 at 68, per Lord Diplock.

189. J. Austin Lectures on Jurisprudence or the Philosophy of Positive Law (3rd edn, 1869) p 441.

190. See the Transkeian Penal Code 1886, s 82.

191. J. F. Stephen A Digest of the Criminal Law (1877) art 47.

192. R v Grogan (1889) 15 VLR 340 at 342, per Higinbotham CJ (SC of Viet).

193. Criminal Code of Tasmania, s 2(1).

194. R v Punch (1927) 20 Cr App R 18.

195. See the case cited at n 192, supra.

196. Henderson v R (1948) 91 CCC 97 (SCC).

197. At 105, per Tascherau J.

198. See the case cited at n 192, supra.

199. Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar AIR [1961] SC 1698 (SC of India).

200. Seen 177, supra.

201. Seen 178, supra.

202. Law Corn No 102, para 2.33.

203. Crimes Act 1961 (NZ), s 72(2).

204. Canadian Criminal Code, s 24(2).

205. Tasmanian Criminal Code Act, s 2(4).

206. Haas v R [1964] Tas SR 1 (SC of Tasmania).

207. DPP v Stonehouse [1977] 2 All ER 909, with Viscount Dilhorne and Lord Diplock dissenting; cf R v Mathews [1981] Crim L Rev 325.

208. Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s l(1).

209. R v Cline [1956] OR 539 (CA of Ont).

210. R v Brown (1947) 88 CCC 242 at 246, per Laidlaw JA (CA of Ont).

211. R v Grogan (1889) 15 VLR 340 at 342, per Higinbotham CJ.

212. See the Tasmanian Criminal Code Act, s 2(3).

913. R v Katz 1959 (3) SA 408 at 421, per de Villiers AJ (C).

214. State v Francis 1981 (1) SA 230 at 235 (AD of Zimbabwe).

215. State v Kudangirana 1976 (3) SA 563 at 565 (AD of Zimbabwe).

216. State v Manhunze 1977 (3) SA 1009 (AD of Zimbabwe).

217. J. Hall General Principles of Criminal Law (2nd edn, 1960) p 558.

218. J. W. C. Turner Modern Approach to Criminal Law (1945) p 280–281.

219. Russell on Crime (11th edn, 1958, by J. W. C. Turner) reviewed by J. C. Smith in (1958) Crim L Rev 830.

220. R v Barker [1924] NZLR 865 at 875, per Salmond J (CA of NZ).

221. R v Williams, ex p The Minister for Justice and A-G [1965] Qd R 86 at 99 (CCA of Qld).

222. R v Quinton (1947) 88 CCC 231 at 234–235, per Roach JA (CA of BC) cf R v Carey (1957) 118 CCC 241 (SCC).

223. R v Brown (1947) 88 CCC 242 (CA of Ont).

224. Danvey v Lee (1967) 51 Cr App R 303 at 306, per Lord Parker CJ.

225. For examples of Commonwealth authorities consistent with this principle, see R v Moore [1936] NZLR 979 (CA of NZ); R v Butters [1959] Crim L Rev 215; R v Lawson [1959] Crim L Rev 134; R v Gammon (1959) 123 JP 410.

226. See n 220, supra.

227. R v Yelds [1928] NZLR 18 at 21, per Herdman J (CA of NZ).

228. Campbell and Bradley v Ward [1955] NZLR 471 at 476, per Adams J (SC of NZ).

229. R v Moore [1936] NZLR 979 at 995, per Kennedy J (CA of NZ).

230. R v Honor [1918] NZLR 510 (CA of NZ); R v Bateman [1959] NZLR 487 at 491, per North J (CA of NZ); cf, for South African law, State v Macdonald 1980 (2) SA 939 (AD).

231. Archibold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (34th edn, 1959) s 4104.

232. R v Moore, n 229 supra, at 989, per Reed ACJ (CA of NZ).

233. Police v Wylie [1976] 2 NZLR 167 at 169, per Woodhouse J (CA of NZ).

234. R v Mackie [1957] NZLR 669 at 675–676, per North J (CA of NZ).

235. See for example, R v Miskell [1954] 1 WLR 438; R v Clive [1956] OR 539 (CA of Ont).

236. Jones v Brooks [1968] Crim L Rev 498.

237. R v Godfrey (1974) 18 CCC (2d) 90 at 101, per Allen JA (SC, AD of Alberta).

238. R v James (1970) 2 CCC (2d) 141 (CA of Ont).

239. R v Mackie, n 224, supra, at 675, per North J (CA of NZ).

240. P. B. A. Sim ‘The Actus Reus in Criminal Attempts’ (1955) 18 Modern Law Review 620.

241. McKay v R (1935) 54 CLR 1 (HCA); R v Edwards [1956] QWN 16 (SC of Qld).

242. R v Van Zyl 1942 TPD 291 at 298, per Schreiner J.

243. R v Cline, n 6 supra.

244. Crimes Act 1961 (NZ), s 72(3).

245. Davey v Lee (1967) 51 Cr App R 303 at 306, per Lord Parker CJ.

246. R v Khalpey 1960 (2) SA 192; cf J. H. Paine ‘Some Reflections on Our Criminal Law’ [1960] Acta Juridica at 310.

247. Hope v Brown [1954] 1 WLR 250; R v Lankford [1959] Crim L Rev 209.

248. Law Com No 102, paras 2.131–2.133.

249. R v Kosh [1965] 1 CCC 230 at 235, per Culliton CJS (CA of Sask).

250. Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch, art 22.

251. R v Hlatwayo 1933 TPD 441; R v Agmat 1965 (2) SA 874 (C).

252. Van Leeuwen Censura Forensis 1.5.1.5; Huber Heedendaegse Rechtsgeleertheyt 6.1.4.

253. Tasmanian Criminal Code Act, s 2(2).

254. Queensland Criminal Code Act, s 4.

255. Western Australia Criminal Code Amendment Act, s 4.

256. State v du Plessis 1981 (3) SA 382 at 398, per Corbett JA (AD). The concept of ‘conditional intention’, which received a fillip from the misleading statement that ‘It cannot be said that one who has it in mind to steal only if what he finds is worth stealing has a present intention to steal’[R v Husseyn (1977) 67 Cr App R 131 at 132, per Lord Scarman], has no useful role in the law of criminal attempts where the central requirement is that relating to a formed intention: DPP v Nock and Alsford (1978) 67 Cr App R 116; R v Walkington [1979] 1 WLR 1169; Attorney-General's References (Nos 1 and 2 of 1979) [1980] QB 180; R v Bayley and Easterbrook [1980] Crim L Rev 503.

257. R v Page [1933] Argus LR 374 at 376, per Mann ACJ (SC of Victoria); cf, for English law, Kyprianou v Reynolds [1969] Crim L Rev 657.

458. Skilton, ‘The Requisite Act in a Criminal Attempt’ (1937) 3 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 308.

259. J. F. Stephen A History of the Criminal Law of England (1983) vol 2, p 226–227.

260. J. Andenaes The General Part of the Criminal Law of Norway (1965) p 300.

261. Munak Binte Ali v Public Prosecutor [1958] MLJ 159 (Ct of App of the Fed of Maylaya).

464. J. Bentham Principles of Morals and Legislation (1826) p 417.

263. A. W. Mewett and M. Manning Canadian Criminal Law (1978) p 145.

264. French Penal Code, art 3.6.31.

265. Strafgesetzbuch, art 46 (1).

266. Maltese Code, s 42(1) (b).

267. Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s l(1).

268. Canadian Criminal Code, s 24(1).

269. Crimes Act 1961 (NZ), s 72(1).

270. Draft Code of the Criminal Code Commissioners 1879, s 74.

271. American Model Penal Code 1960, s 5.01(1).

272. R v Lowe [1973] QB 702 at 709.

273. G. L. Williams op cit n 29, supra, p 621.

274. Cf R v Instan [1893] 1 QB 450; R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App Rep 134; R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] 1 QB 354; see also G. Hughes ‘Criminal Omissions’ (1958) 67 Yale Law Journal 590 at 613–614.

275. R v M'Pherson (1857) Dears & B 197; R v Collins (1864) 9 Cox CC 497.

276. See, for example, R v Ring, Atkins and Jackson (1892) 61 LJMC 116.

277. R v Hensler (1870) 11 Cox CC 570. But see the dicta in the House of Lords in Haughton v Smith [1974] 2 WLR 1 at 12–13, per Lord Reid, to the effect that the completed offence was not in these circumstances impossible.

278. R v Brown (1889) 24 QBD 357.

479. R v Goodchild (1846) 2 Car & K 293. This was not an attempt, stricto sensu, since the substantive offence consisted in the administration of a noxious thing with intent to procure a miscarriage; cf, for Australian law, R v Lindner [1938] SASR 412 (SC of South Austr).

480. DPP v Nock and Alsford [1978] AC 979 at 1000, per Lord Scarman.

281. R v Osborne (1920) 84 JP 63.

484. R v Villensky (1892) 2 QB 597; cf R v Dolan (1855) Dears CC 436.

283. Partington v Williams [1977] Crim L Rev 302.

284. R v Easom [1971] 2 QB 315.

285. Mieras v Rees [1975] Crim L Rev 224.

486. R v Gaylor (1857) 7 Cox CC 253 at 255.

287. G. L. Williams ‘Criminal Liability - Attempting the Impossible’ (1974) 33 Camb LJ 31.

288. Haughton v Smith, n 277, supra.

289. R v Millar and Page (1965) 49 Cr App R 241 and R v Curbishley and Crispin (1970) 55 Cr App R 310 were overruled by the House of Lords in Haughton v Smith [1974] 2 WLR 1 at 16.

290. DPP v Nock and Alsford, n 280, supra.

291. R v McDonough (1962) 47 Cr App R 37; cf R v Fitzmaurice [1983] 1 MLR 227 at 233, per Neill J.

292. R v Green [1976] QB 985 at 993, per Ormerod LJ; cf R v Bennett, Wilfred and West (1979) 68 Cr App R. 168.

293. Haggard v Mason [1976] 1 All ER 337.

294. R v Farrance [1978] RTR 225; see, however, R v Neilson [1978] RTR 232.

295. Haughton v Smith, n 289, supra.

296. DPP v Nock and Alsford, n 280 supra, at 992–993, per Lord Diplock; cf the approach of Lord Scarman at 999–1000.

297. See Law Corn No 102, paras 2.53–2.100.

298. Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s 1(2).

299. R v Perera [1907] VLR 240 (SC of Vict).

300. McMillan v Reeves (1945) 62 WN (NSW) 126 (SC of NSW).

301. O'Sullivan v Peters [1951] SASR 54 (SC of South Austr).

304. Haas v R [1964] Tas SR l (SC of Tas).

303. Stephens v Abrahams (1902) 27 VLR 753 (SC of Viet).

304. R v Collingridge (1976) 16 SASR 117 (SC of South Austr).

305. R v Austin (1905) 24 NZLR 983 (CA of NZ).

306. At 992, per Cooper J.

307. Police v Jay [1974] 2 NZLR 204 (SC of NZ).

308. R v Donnelly [1970] NZLR 980 (CA of NZ).

309. R v Maarman (1886) 5 EDC 331.

310. R v Abraham (1907) 24 SC 157.

311. R v Seane 1924 TPD 668.

312. R v Freestone 1910 TPD 758.

313. R v Claasen 1936 CPD 28.

314. R v Parker and Allan 1917 AD 552; R v Chipangu 1939 AD 266.

315. R v Davies 1956 (3) SA 52 (AD).

316. State v Pachai 1962 (4) SA 246, (T); R v Shongwe 1966 (1) SA 390 (AD of SR).

317. See n 11, supra.

318. S 24(1); cf R v Pettibone (1918) 2 WWR 806 (SC of Alta); cf R v Kundeus (1976) 2 SCR 272 (SC of Canada).

319. Tasmanian Criminal Code 1924, s 2(2).

320. Queensland Criminal Code 1899, s 4.

321. Criminal Code Amendment Act 1913 (Western Australia), s 4.

322. Indian Penal Code 1860, s 511.

323. Straits Settlements Penal Code 1871, s 511.

324. Ibid.

325. Penal Code of Sri Lanka 1883, s 490.

326. Illinois Penal Code, rev stat ch 38, 1965, s 8.4.

327. Michigan Revised Criminal Code 1967, s 1001(2).

328. Louisiana stat 1950, s 14.27.

329. New York Penal Law 1967, s 110.10.

330. See illustrations (a) and (b) attached to s 511 of the Penal Codes of India, Malaysia and Singapore and to s 490 of the Penal Code of Sri Lanka which contemplate, respectively, intrusion into an empty jewel box and an empty pocket.

331. Haughton v Smith, n 277, supra, at 5, per Lord Hailsham; cf at 12, per Lord Reid.

332. Ibid at 13, per Lord Reid.

333. Ibid at 15, per Lord Morris; cf 6. Hughes ‘One Further Footnote on Attempting the Impossible’ (1967) 42 New York Univ L Rev 1005 at 1024.

334. Haughton v Smith, n 277, supra, at 15, per Lord Morris.

335. R v Donnely [1970] NZLR 980 at 992, per Turner J (CA of NZ).

336. R. Cross and P. A. Jones An Introduction to Criminal Law (6th edn, 1968) p 114.

337. J. H. Beale ‘Criminal Attempts’ (1903) 16 Harvard L Rev 491 at 501.

338. Cf Bracton Legibus 337. 128. 13.

339. For an emphatic denial of this, see P. A. Landon, in his review of G. L. Williams Criminal Law: The General Part (1954) 70 Law Quarterly Review 556.

340. Cf H. Gross A Theory of Criminal Justice (1979) p 132.

341. H. L. A. Hart ‘The House of Lords on Attempting the Impossible’ in Crime, Proof, and Punishment; Essays in Memory of sir Rupert Cross (1981) pp 18–19.

342. J. C. Smith ‘The Element of chance in Criminal Liability’ [1971] Crim L Rev 63; cf M. Cohen ‘Questions of Impossibility’ [1980] Crim L Rev 773 at 775.

343. R v Katz 1959 (3) SA 408 at 420, per de Villiers AJ (C).

344. Ibid.

345. M. S. Rowell ‘Impossible Attempts: An Alternative Solution’ (1978) 128 NLJ 716 at 717.

346. J. Temkin ‘Impossible Attempts: Another View’ (1976) 39 Modern Law Review 55 at 69.

347. Fujino v Japan SC, I Petty Bench, 31 August 1950.

348. Haughton v Smith, n 277, supra, at 7–8, per Lord Hailsham.

349. Ibid at 9, per Lord Hailsham.

350. See a judgment of 1 June 1927 by the Great Court of Judicature, I Crim Dept, 6 Dai-hen Keishu 208 at 215.

351. Asgaralli Pradhanin v Emperor (1899) ILR 61 Cal 54.

354. Munah Binti Ali v Public Prosecutor (1958) 24 MLJ 159 (CA of Malaya).

353. R v Fernando (1925) 27 NLR 181 (SC of Ceylon).

354. Epoux Fleury v Ministère Public, Cour de Cassation, ch crim, 9 November 1928.

355. See a judgment of 27 February 1888, Reichsgericht I Strafsenat, 17 RGS 158 at 159.

556. Garafolo Criminology (Mod Cr Sc Ser 1914), pp 312–313.

357. C. Howard op cit n 2, supra, at p 303.

358. R v Davies 1956 (3) SA 52 (AD).

359. F. B. Sayre ‘Criminal Attempts’ (1928) 41 Harvard L Rev 821 at 850.

360. R v Percy Dalton Ltd (1949) 33 Cr App R 102.

361. Haughton v Smith, n 277, supra.

369. See the comments by Mr Patrick Mayhew, Minister of State at the Home Office, in HC Official Report of the Special Standing Committee (SSC) D. (1980–1981) column 4.

363. A comparable expedient is proposed by J. C. Smith ‘Two Problems in Criminal Attempts’ (1957) 70 Harvard L Rev 422 at 424–426.

364. Law Commission Working Paper No 50, paras 2.88–2.89, para 2.92.

365. See the discussion in the text at notes 369–374, infra.

366. Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch, art 23.

367. R v Lee Shek [1976] HKLR 636 at 639, per Huggins JA (CA).

368. A. Keane ‘Attempting the Impossible - the Devil We Know’ (1983) 13 HKLJ 39 at 60.

369. Cf S. W. Stewart A Modern View of the Criminal Law (1969) p 96.

370. R v William [1893] 1 QB 320; cf R v Creamer [1919] 1 KB 564; Walters v Lunt [1951] 2 All ER 645. See also R v Eldershaw (1828) 3 C & P 396; R v Philips (1839) 173 ER 695.

371. R v Moody [1897] QCR 344 (SC of Qld); but see R v Packer [1932] VLR 225 (SC of Vict).

372. R v Angus (1907) 26 NZLR 948 (SC of NZ).

373. J. S. Strahorn ‘The Effect of Impossibility on Criminal Attempts’ (1930) 78 U Pa L Rev 962 at 990.

374. Cf P.J. Fitzgerald Criminal Law and Punishment (1962) p 101.

375. See the Japanese Draft Penal Code 1961, art 23.

376. R. A. Ribeiro, ‘Criminal Liability for Attempting the Impossible: Lady Luck and the Villains’ (1974) 4 HKLJ 109 at 131.

377. R. Buxton ‘The Working Paper on Inchoate Offences: Incitement and Attempt’ [1973] Crim L Rev 656 at 673.

378. M. G. Paulsen and S. H. Kadish Criminal Law and its Processes (1962) p 482.

379. P. R. Glazebrooke ‘Should We Have a Law of Attempted Crime?’ (1969) 85 LQR 28.

380. For an example of excessive boldness on the part of the courts in expanding the ambit of liability, see R v McShane (1977) 66 Cr App R 97 where it was held in England that there could be an attempt to counsel or procure suicide. A more cautious attitude appears to have been adopted in Australia [Beckwith v R (1976) 12 ALR 333 (HCA)] and in New Zealand R v Grant [1975] 2 NZLR 165 at 169 (SC of NZ].

381. Law Corn No 102, para 2.5.

382. P. K. Ryu ‘Contemporary Problems of Criminal Attempts’ (1957) New York Univ L Ref 1170 at 1175.

383. J. S. Strahorn ‘Preparation for Crime as a Criminal Attempt’ (1959) 1 Wash & Lee L Rev 1.

384. Haughton v Smith, n 277, supra, at 13, per Lord Reid.

385. H. L. Packer The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (1969) p 101.