CRIMINAL ESSAYS: 2019: (3) 'The decision in Pace and Rogers was a step backwards for the law of attempt.' Step backwards; in what way did it change the law? I think it has because now there's another definition; though this only applies to when there are also consequential elements, so say the whole of the law took a step back was a bit of a stretch; law is still expansive i.e., Shivpuri (impossible attempts) Decision in Pace and Rogers - Police tried to catch out the defendants, known criminals but used metal owned by the police. The crime of handling stolen goods required knowledge that the goods were stolen rather than just suspicion so the defendants could never be guilty. Principle that applied was D must intend all aspects of the defence What impact does this have? - Stark argues this is right: an attempt should be an attempt to commit the full crime - Though stark is right in relation to the principle to which attempts is based, it provides inapplicable standards to attempted rape; a minority of people would actually intend for their victims to not consent, doesn't mean they shouldn't not be guilty if they are reckless or force their V into sex, with the genuinely held belief or otherwise that V is consenting. This would prove a void in culpability for said D which is not acceptable. All of these types of defendants should be reached - Though in this case, the prosecution was unable to get round the fact that it was impossible to complete the offence in this case, that does not consequently mean impossible attempts cannot be convictable, and thus meaning P + R didn't make the law of attempts take a step backwards. This is clearly seen in the case of Shivpuri ... perhaps relate to s.1(3) of CAA; if D did not form an intention, but on the fact of the case as he believed them to be dd, this would count (i.e., Shivpuri) Did it change that much? - This also falls down the general principle that police shouldn't set people up i.e., in Sang where it was held that police could be guilty of secondary liability Other contradictory cases - Khan (attempted rape); D who couldn't get hard and thus couldn't rape were still convicted of attempted rape. Here the rule established was MR for substantive offence is the same as the attempt - Though ruled before P + R; its application here would be that Khan shouldn't have been convicted as they most probably didn't intent for V not to consent, just to have sex; here it would be problematic not to convict as it is clear the culpability of D in Khan is equal to the people who were actually able to penetrate; just with the latter being successful in
getting aroused. Thus P + R can be seen as a step backwards as it adds uncertainty to the law of attempt; now juries have to consider