marTlmsajuleba kanoni

FOOTNOTES
1
Advanced legal systems leave preparation of a crime unpunished (Jean Pradel, Comparative
Criminal Law” (Edition Dalloz, 1995). P. 242. However, there are exceptions from this
rule. Conspiracy to commit crime is punishable in UK, US, France as separate crime.
Preparation of particularly serious crime is punishable in Spain, Netherlands and some
other countries.
2
(1915) 2. K.B. 342, in this case, the court used a proximity test. (see below). A similar case
was attributed also to the ambit of preparatory activity by the Supreme Court in Germany
(BGH Dallinger MDR 1966, 197).
3
Comer v. Bloomfield (1970) (55) Cr. App. Rep. 305. The court applied proximity test. A
similar case, which happened in France was also attributed to the preparation by French
court (Crim. 22 Mai, 1984.)
4
R. v. Rowley (1992) Cr. App. R. 95
5
R. v. Rowley (1992) Cr. App. R. 95
6
R. v. Jones (1990) 91. Cr. App. R. 351
7
R. v. White 1910 2. K. B. . In this case the court applied first act test according to which
it is enough for defendant to commit first act from a series of acts directed to commission
of the crime.
8
Commonwealth v. Peaslee (177 Mass) 277 . In this case the court used proximity test
9
Chambre Criminelle, 13 Janvier, 1913, D. 1914. Similarly was held to the act of waiting
at the place where the car transporting the money should have passed. place where the
money with
10
People v. Rizzo 246. N.Y. The court used proximity test.
11
Crim 11 Juin, 1975
12
Crim. 14 Juin, 1995
13
Crim. 5 Juin, 1984
14
“The attempt is characterized by actions which should immediately be followed by
completed crime (Crim. 25 oct. 1962)
15
Tosti (1997) Criminal Law Review 476
16
BGH 22, 80
17
Similar formula is applied by criminal codes of some other European countries such as
Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland.
18
Rex. V. Barker (1924) This theory was applied by English and American courts but was
finally rejected. In Our view this theory extends the borders of punishable attempt and
covers also very preparatory actions as well as revelation of intent.
19
This theory is often applied by English and American courts. Also High Court of
Belgium.- Jean Pradel “Droit pénal général comparé” (edition cujas, 2005) p. 76
20
This test was first applied in Regina v. Egleton (London 1855), It is often criticized
because excessively limits borders of punishable attempt. Unless the suspected murderer
pulls the trigger, he may not be made responsible for the attempt..
21
In French criminal law, this theory is supported by authors Ortolan and VIley. Michele
Laure Rassat – DDroit Penal General (2004) p. 312
22
Such countries are UK and some US states.
25