skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 136416 Find in a Library
Title: Australian Criminal Law: Attempts
Journal: Criminal Law Forum  Volume:2  Issue:3  Dated:(Spring 1991)  Pages:511-567
Author(s): M Sann; G Niemann
Date Published: 1991
Page Count: 57
Type: Legislation/Policy Description
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: These two papers were presented at the Review of Commonwealth Criminal Law, held under the auspices of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, in Brisbane, Australia, in April 1991.
Abstract: The Society has been involved in the attempt to rationalize Australia's criminal law, in which there is currently a great deal of variation in the applicable principles of responsibility from statute to statute and from State to State. The movement for codification is designed to achieve consistency and simplicity in the criminal law by seeking common ground, following a system of review, and creating a more rational approach to the law. The Brisbane seminar examined many issues relevant to the codification movement including fault elements, mistakes, age of criminal responsibility, insanity, provocation, complicity, defense of persons and property, corporate crime, attempts, and conspiracy. The Third Interim Report of the Review Committee accompanies this article. The second paper deals with the law of attempts. There are several tests to determine whether or not an attempted crime has occurred, including the substantial step test, the proximity test, and the dangerousness test. This author argues that any codification of the law of attempts needs to be clear, unambiguous, and not conducive of multiple interpretations. 65 notes and 70 notes
Main Term(s): Attempted crimes; Foreign criminal codes
Index Term(s): Australia; Criminal responsibility; Offense classification
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.