Question 1 Plan for R v Gullefer (1987)
For the full fact see Source 3 line 8-18
D had placed an £18 bet on a greyhound, because his dog was loosing, hoping to get his money back he jumped onto the track. D was prosecuted and convicted for attempted theft.
CRITICAL POINT: ( ratio decidendi )
Court of Appeal quashed conviction as C.J. Lord Lane held that at the stage he jumped on to the track, could not be said to be in the process of committing theft and had not committed acts which were more than merely preparatory to the offence of theft.
on appeal conviction was quashed as D had not gone beyond the preparatore stage, as he still had to go to ask for his money back from the book markers.
ANALITICAL POINT: ( orbiter dicta )
conditional intent; when it comes to framing the indictment for attempted theft or burglary it is more difficult to solve cases. in fact for people such as burglars and thefts that don't have any particular plan in mind it is always more difficult to convict them because of the mens rea
The case of Easom  2 ALL ER 945: defendant was found by plain-clothes police officer rummaging in her handbag. He did not take anything, but was subsequently charged with theft of the handbag and it contents (i.e. purse, notebook etc.). Initially convicted with theft, C of A quashed his conviction following a misdirection. Appeal court also declined to substitute conviction with attempt as there was no evidence that D intended to steal those specific items. In Attorney-Gen Refer. (NOS 1 and 2 of 1979 3 ALL ER 143 D should be charged with attempt to steal 'some or all of the contents' of the handbag.
It is clear that the sec 1(2) of CAA is still unprecise on attempted theft, therefore dangerous people can escape liability and undermine peoples security. Therefore in cases such as gullefer people should pay more attention at the winning dog.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document