ABSTRACT
This chapter has been written from the perspective of a criminal law practitioner and it aims not only to guide the reader through the maze of legal complexities. In a typical case it will be sufficient to confine the mens rea requirements of s 47 to what D 'believed' the position to be. Even though those considerations may be a weak argument for retaining s 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, the question of whether that provision ought to be repealed, or not, is one that ought to be considered first by the Law Commission, perhaps as part of a further but wider review of secondary and inchoate liability. Bohlander's argument goes further, alluding to s 3 of the 1981 Act, which provides that 'any inconsistent provision in any other enactment' is to be applied in a manner consistent with the scheme of that Act.
