Ask a Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
Simester and Sullivan argue that it would be a mistake to respond to the decisions in R v Campbell  93 Cr App R 350 and R v Geddes  Crim LR 894 by widening the actus reus of criminal attempts. This, they argue, would “carry an undue risk of oppressive policing and unsafe convictions based on dubious convictions”. They suggest that the best way forward is instead to “craft specific offences for particular situations which presage the occurrence of serious harm” (Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine (5th edn), p358). How far (if at all) do you agree?