Tentatives

Ang

Fr

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois January 2015. (Rev. # 6170)

• < Droit pénal

Principes généraux

Attempts refer to the category of offences that amount to an unfulfilled (or "inchoate") substantive offence. Section 24 defines the meaning of "attempt" within the Criminal Code:

Tentatives

24 (1) Quiconque, ayant l’intention de commettre une infraction, fait ou omet de faire quelque chose pour arriver à son but est coupable d’une tentative de commettre l’infraction, qu’il fût possible ou non, dans les circonstances, de la commettre.

Note marginale :Question de droit

(2) Est une question de droit la question de savoir si un acte ou une omission par une personne qui a l’intention de commettre une infraction est ou n’est pas une simple préparation à la perpétration de l’infraction, et trop lointaine pour constituer une tentative de commettre l’infraction.

S.R., ch. C-34, art. 24 

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

Certain offences have their own circumscribed meaning of attempt, such as bribery, obstructing justice, and attempt murder.

Unavailable Defences

Both legal and factual impossibility is not a defence to an allegation of attempt.

The defence of abandonment is generally not to be considered and instead is treated as failure to form the full intent for attempt.

Reconciling Offence Charged

An attempt is an included offence to most substantive offences.

Lorsque la consommation d’infraction n’est pas prouvée

660 Lorsque la consommation d’une infraction imputée n’est pas prouvée, mais que la preuve établit une tentative de commettre l’infraction, l’accusé peut être déclaré coupable de la tentative.

S.R., ch. C-34, art. 587

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

Tentative imputée, preuve de consommation d’infraction

661 (1) Lorsqu’une tentative de commettre une infraction fait l’objet d’une inculpation, mais que la preuve établit que l’infraction a été consommée, l’accusé n’a pas le droit d’être acquitté, mais le jury peut le déclarer coupable de la tentative, à moins que le juge qui préside le procès, à sa discrétion, ne dispense le jury de rendre un verdict et n’ordonne que le prévenu soit mis en accusation pour l’infraction consommée.

Note marginale :La déclaration de culpabilité est une fin de non-recevoir

(2) Un prévenu qui est déclaré coupable en vertu du présent article ne peut pas être poursuivi de nouveau pour l’infraction qu’il a été accusé d’avoir tenté de commettre.

S.R., ch. C-34, art. 588

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

Attempting vs Preparing

A person attempting to commit an offence can be criminally liable for the attempt. For any attempt to be made out, the person's actions must be more than "mere preparation."

It is understood that a crime begins with an idea, then a decision to do the act, a plan to commit the act, then steps of preparation begin to carry out the plan. The criminal attempt begins only once the preparation is complete. The accused will then perform a series of acts with the intention of committing the offence.

There is no general criterion to distinguish between mere preparation and actual attempt. It largely going to be left to the "common sense" of the judge.

There is, however, a "qualitative" distinction that can be made:

"...the distinction between preparation and attempt is essentially a qualitative one, involving the relationship between the nature and quality of the act in question and the nature of the complete offence, although consideration must necessarily be given, in making that qualitative distinction, to the relative proximity of the act in question to what would have been the completed offence, in terms of time, location and acts under the control of the accused remaining to be accomplished. I find that view to be compatible with what has been said about the actus reus of attempt in this Court and in other Canadian decisions that should be treated as authoritative on this question."

The trial judge should consider the "relative proximity of that conduct to the conduct required to amount to the completed substantive offence. Relevant factors would include time, location and acts under the control of the accused yet to be accomplished.”

The issue is one of factual proximity to the offence. An act that would otherwise be mere preparation can become an attempt where it is sufficiently proximate to the completion of the full actus reus. However, a lack of temporal proximity will not prevent it from being an attempt. Nor would the fact that there are several intermediate acts prevent the act from being an attempt.

The act will be sufficient where the accused actions have "progressed a sufficient distance (beyond mere preparation) down the intended path."

The act does not have to be a crime, a civil wrong or even a moral wrong.

Standard of Appellate Review

The issue of whether an act is an attempt as opposed to preparation is a question of law and reviewable on a standard of correctness.

Mens Rea

There must be a specific intent to commit the act making up the offence.

The mens rea for an attempt is the same as the mens rea as the offence itself. The only difference is that there is an incomplete actus reus.

Specific Examples

An accused who has gone through security at an airport with a ticket has attempted to breach his conditions to stay in the province.

An accused who goes through the glove box of a car looking for keys to the car that he wishes to steal has attempted to commit theft.

The act of making a plasticine impression of car keys with a view to stealing the car is mere preparation.

An accused who ships fish, shows a sample and then solicits interest without any discussion of terms is attempting to sell.

Pointing a loaded firearm at a person while making threats without touching the trigger can be an attempt murder.

See Also

• Tentative de meurtre (infraction)
• Attempts and Accessories After the Fact (Offence)
• Conspiration (infraction)