Inchoate Offences

Introduction

**Inchoate offences** allow the criminal law to intervene **before** the substantive harm has materialised. A defendant who has set out to commit a crime but has not (yet) completed it may nonetheless be guilty of an offence in his own right. This chapter examines the three principal inchoate offences for SQE1: **attempt** (the core examinable topic, under the **Criminal Attempts Act 1981**), **encouraging or assisting crime** (ss. 44–46 **Serious Crime Act 2007**) and **conspiracy** (s. 1 **Criminal Law Act 1977**). The bulk of the examinable detail concerns **attempt**: its actus reus ('more than merely preparatory'), its mens rea (intention to commit the full offence) and the rules on **attempting the impossible**.

Assessment focus

For the SQE1 FLK2 assessment, **attempt** is the only inchoate offence likely to be tested in detail. You must be able to apply the **'more than merely preparatory'** test to a client scenario (Gullefer, Jones, Geddes, Tosti), state the **mens rea** of attempt — intention to commit the full offence, with **intention to kill** required for attempted murder (Whybrow; Walker and Hayles) — and explain the **impossibility** rules following **R v Shivpuri** (overruling Anderton v Ryan). **Conditional intent** is not sufficient (Pace and Rogers). **Encouraging or assisting** (SCA 2007) and **conspiracy** (CLA 1977) are **signposted only**: know that they exist, that they are inchoate, and that their maximum penalty mirrors the anticipated offence. Questions are single best answer (SBAQ) set in realistic scenarios — you must **apply** the law, not merely recall it. This is a closed-book assessment.

Study tips

1) Memorise the **statutory test**: s. 1(1) CAA 1981 — an act **'more than merely preparatory'** done **'with intent to commit'** the offence. 2) Learn the **four boundary cases**: **Gullefer** and **Geddes** = still preparatory; **Jones** and **Tosti** = crossed into execution. Ask: has D moved from planning/equipping into **execution**? 3) **Attempted murder = intention to KILL only** (not GBH): Whybrow. This catches many candidates out. 4) **Impossibility is no defence**: ss. 1(2)–(3) CAA 1981, R v Shivpuri — empty pocket, harmless powder, empty bed are all capable of being attempted. 5) **Conditional intent is insufficient** for attempt: Pace and Rogers. 6) For **conspiracy**, remember **'the agreement is the gist'** — the offence is complete at agreement and **withdrawal is no defence**.