#crime #inchoate #law

But what if the mens rea of the offence includes an element which does not relate to the actus reus? The mens rea for an attempt to commit this offence is then an intention to achieve that what is missing from the actus reus, plus the mens rea for the full offence. Att-Gen's Ref (No 3 of 1992)
FACTS: The respondents were in a moving car from which a lighted petrol bomb was thrown at an occupied car, beside a pavement on which persons were standing. The bomb passed over the car and hit a wall adjacent to the pavement. The wall was not damaged. They were charged with attempted aggravated arson contrary the Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 1(2). The mens rea for the full offence is: (a) intention or recklessness as to damaging property; and (b) intention or recklessness as to endangering life. The actus reus of this offence is damaging property. There is no need for life to be endangered (see Chapter 11). The trial judge ruled that there was no evidence on which the jury could find an intent to endanger life so the respondents were not liable.
HELD: The Court of Appeal held that for an attempt to commit aggravated arson (Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 1(2)), it was only necessary to prove an intent to [...], together with the other mens rea required for the offence. In the present case, what was missing to prevent a conviction for the completed offence was damage to the property. Therefore for an attempt it must be shown that D had an intention to damage propertyand the remaining state of mind required for the offence of aggravated arson – that is recklessness as to whether life was thereby endangered. It was said that another way of putting it is that the defendant had the state of mind for the full offence and he intended to do the physical element which was missing.

achieve what was missing from the full offence