Any Lawyers out there fancy a go at this one?

[ronianna]

I heard a story the other day about a crime that involved a drive by shooting. I recalled it at a dinner party recently and opened up a whole raft of thoughts / questions etc.

Can anyone add any value to this debate by providing some hard facts.

A man was seen shooting a firarm, from a moving vehicle, towards a man laying on the pavement. Police attended the scene and discovered a dead male on the pavement.

The police arrested a guy (the driver of the vehocle involved) on the suspician of murder. Tests on his victims body revealed that he was ALREADY dead when the suspect shot him. The victim had been previously attacked and killed prior to the suspect's arrival on the scene.

The question is / was - can you be charged with a crime that is/was infact impossible to commit? as in this case. This then becomes even more far reaching in that fact that the charge of 'intention' also couldn't be brought either, for the same reasons.

Maybe a more minor firearm charge is all that could result from any trial?

On a similar theme;

There is a landmark case of a guy who planned to steal diamonds from his company (without force or malice) that were stored in a briefcase. The police became aware of his intention and subsituted the diamonds for valueless ballast.

They allowed him to execute his plans and then arrested him.

Later he was released without charge because it was impossible for him to have commited the crime - a lesser charge of theft of the briefcase might have been the only legal charge available. (again this is only third party hearsay so maybe I'm wrong)

Thanks anyone.

God, we have some interesting dinner party conversations!

[3Styler]

same thing happened with a tramp who tried to pickpocket someone but when caught it was found there was nothing in the pocket he tried to steal from and so got off free for it was proved it was physically impossible for him to be guilty of anything.  this case i believe was the first of its kind and i assume for the cases you described the verdict would have to conform to the previous like case. 

[thikasabrik]

I remember reading something about this subject once and the phrase that sticks in my mind is that "you cannot be charged with attempting the impossible." So I would say that the person with the gun could only be charged with firearms offences, about which I know zilch. There are some crimes you can be charged with where you "intend", even though the outcome could not possibly be what you intended. An example of this could be where a man decides he is going to kill/seriously harm his ex girlfriend by burning down her house. He then sets the house on fire, thinking she is asleep in her bed and he does not know she is away for the evening. In this example I have made up, he would be charged with arson with intent to endanger life.

On your diamonds in the briefcase example, I can't imagine the police would have substituted them. As you say, he could only be charged with theft of the case. I would have thought they would have let him steal the diamonds while they were lying in wait. I know it's a different scenario, but do you remember the theft of a diamond from the Millenium dome? The police let the thieves go through with it and then nabbed them.

Let me know when your next dinner party is. I will bore anyone to death for a free feed!

[Mortartube]

Sounds interesting. I like this story (it's an urban legend but it's fun).

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/opus.htm

[Lillabet]

Hi, the answers so far haven't quite got it right. There are two types of impossibility in English and Welsh criminal law. The first is legal impossibility - when someone tries to do something believing that they are breaking the law, but in fact they aren't. In this case there is no charge. It sounds unlikely but there have been a couple of cases: DPP v Nock [1978] and R v English (1993) are the main ones.

The second type, which applies here, is physical impossibility. This is where someone does all they can to commit a criminal act but is stopped by something physical. An example would be the scenario 3Styler gave in your 1st answer - a pickpocket finding the pocket to be empty. 3Styler is incorrect in his/her analysis of this. The pickpocket could be charged with attempted theft as all that has stopped them committing the complete offence is a physical impossibility.

The same applies in attempted murder cases. Whilst I have not ever read of a case with the precise scenario you describe there have been a number where houses have been set fire to / shots fired into rooms where people were believed to be but weren't. Criminal charges of attempted murder can and have been brought in these cases. Though as thikasabrik said arson with intent to endanger life would be an alternative charge.

As for your diamonds example - the courts are very reluctant to procede in cases where entrapment is suspected. If there would have been no crime without the police action then there are unlikely to be charges brought. Otherwise there would be no problem in charging someone with theft / burglary / etc.

For the record I'm not a solicitor but did a PhD in Criminal law and taught Criminal Law at a university for a few years...