Attempted Murder Charges: Intent, Defence and Penalties

What Is Attempted Murder?

Attempted murder occurs when a person intends to kill someone and takes action towards carrying out that intention, but the intended killing does not occur.

The law requires more than planning or preparing to commit the offence. The person must have taken steps that go beyond preparation towards committing the killing.

Attempted murder is tried in the Crown Court and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

A serious attack does not automatically amount to attempted murder. The prosecution must establish both the defendant’s intention to kill and the actions taken towards that intention.

How attempted murder differs from murder

The main difference between murder and attempted murder concerns the intention required for a conviction.

For murder, the prosecution may establish that the defendant intended to kill or cause serious bodily harm. Attempted murder requires proof of an intention to kill specifically. An intention to cause serious injury, without an intention to kill, is insufficient.

This distinction may affect which charge is appropriate, even where the alleged violence is serious.

What Must Be Proved for Attempted Murder?

For an attempted murder conviction, the prosecution must prove two main elements beyond reasonable doubt: an intention to kill and conduct that went beyond preparation towards committing the offence. Both requirements must be established.

The mental element: intent to kill

The prosecution must prove that the defendant intended to cause another person’s death.

An intention to injure someone, even seriously, does not automatically establish attempted murder. Recklessness about causing death is also insufficient. For example, a person may carry out a violent assault intending to cause serious harm without intending to kill. Depending on the evidence, that conduct may support a different criminal charge.

The court must consider what the defendant intended rather than relying solely on the seriousness of the injuries.

The physical element: more than merely preparatory

The defendant must also have taken action that went beyond preparing to commit the killing.

Planning an attack or obtaining a weapon does not necessarily constitute attempted murder.

For example, purchasing a weapon may form part of preparation. Whether later conduct amounts to an attempt depends on how far the person progressed towards carrying out the intended killing.

The court considers the actions taken and the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the legal threshold has been met.

How Do Prosecutors Prove Intent to Kill?

In many attempted murder cases, the defendant’s intention is disputed.

The prosecution may rely on what the defendant said or did, the circumstances of the incident and the available evidence to establish intent to kill. The jury must consider the evidence as a whole. No single factor automatically proves the required intention.

Direct intent

Direct intent arises where the defendant’s purpose was to kill another person.

Evidence may include statements made before or during the incident, messages expressing an intention to kill or admissions made during a police interview. For example, communications indicating that someone planned to kill a particular person may be relevant to establishing intent.

However, statements must be assessed in context alongside the remaining evidence.

Oblique intent

In some cases, a person may not have had killing as their primary purpose but may have recognised that death was a virtually certain consequence of their actions.

This can be relevant when a court considers whether the necessary intention existed. The legal principles surrounding this form of intent are complex. For attempted murder, the relevant intention must concern death, not merely serious injury.

A solicitor can assess how these principles apply where the prosecution relies on the circumstances of an attack rather than an express intention to kill.

What does not automatically prove intent to kill

Using a weapon does not, by itself, establish an intention to kill.

Similarly, the location or severity of an injury is relevant evidence but does not provide a conclusive answer. For example, the prosecution may rely on the nature of a weapon, the force used and the part of the body targeted. The defence may challenge what those circumstances establish about the defendant’s intention.

The jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to kill.

Attempted Murder vs. GBH: What Is the Difference?

Attempted murder and GBH with intent are both serious offences involving violence. Both can carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The main distinction is the intention the prosecution must prove.

Attempted murder requires an intention to kill, while GBH with intent generally involves an intention to cause serious physical harm.

GBH with intent explained

GBH refers to grievous bodily harm, meaning serious physical injury.

A charge of GBH with intent may arise where someone deliberately causes serious injury or wounds another person with the necessary intention. For example, an assault that causes substantial injuries may support a GBH with intent charge if the evidence establishes an intention to cause serious harm.

The prosecution does not need to prove an intention to kill for the usual form of this offence.

Why the distinction matters in court

Where the prosecution cannot prove that the defendant intended to kill, an attempted murder conviction cannot be secured.

However, another serious offence may still be established. Depending on the evidence and the charges or alternative verdicts available, the defendant may be convicted of GBH with intent or another offence. Defence solicitors therefore examine the evidence relating to intention carefully, including witness accounts, medical records and the circumstances of the alleged attack.

The distinction affects both the possible verdict and the sentence.

Can Attempted Murder Carry a Longer Sentence Than Manslaughter?

A person convicted of attempted murder may sometimes receive a longer sentence than someone convicted of manslaughter, despite no death occurring in the attempted murder case. This is possible because courts consider both the harm caused and the offender’s culpability, including what they intended.

However, the sentence depends on the circumstances, and attempted murder does not automatically attract a longer sentence.

The maximum sentence for attempted murder

Attempted murder carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The Sentencing Council provides guidelines that help judges determine appropriate sentences by considering the seriousness of the offence, the harm caused and the defendant’s culpability. Factors such as planning, use of a weapon, the circumstances of the attack and the extent of any injuries may affect sentencing.

A life sentence is not mandatory for every attempted murder conviction.

What manslaughter is and its forms

Manslaughter involves unlawfully causing another person’s death in circumstances that do not result in a murder conviction.

There are two broad categories.

Both categories can carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, although the sentences imposed vary significantly.

Why an attempted murder sentence can be higher

The defendant’s intention is an important factor in sentencing. Someone convicted of attempted murder must have intended to kill, even though the intended death did not occur.

By comparison, a person convicted of involuntary manslaughter may have caused a death without intending to kill or cause serious injury. Depending on the circumstances, the attempted murder offence may therefore be assessed as involving greater culpability. For example, a planned attempt to kill may attract a longer sentence than an unlawful act that unexpectedly causes death.

However, the outcome depends on the nature of the offence, the harm caused, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicable sentencing guidelines.

What Defences Are Available for Attempted Murder?

An attempted murder allegation may involve disputed evidence about what happened, who was responsible or what the defendant intended.

The available defence depends on the circumstances and the prosecution’s evidence.

Evidence the prosecution may rely on

The prosecution may rely on physical evidence, medical reports, witness accounts and digital records. Evidence might include weapons recovered from the scene, CCTV footage, photographs of injuries or messages exchanged before or after the incident. Medical evidence may help establish the nature of an attack, while witness statements and communications may be relevant to the defendant’s intentions.


The defence can examine the reliability of this material and whether it supports the charge.

Self-defence

Self-defence may apply where a person used force to protect themselves or another person from unlawful violence.

The court considers whether the defendant genuinely believed force was necessary and whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances as they believed them to be. For example, someone accused of serious violence may argue that they acted in response to an immediate threat.

Whether self-defence succeeds depends on the evidence, including the nature of the threat and the response.

Challenging intent to kill

A defendant may dispute the allegation that they intended to kill. For example, they may accept involvement in an assault while denying an intention to cause death.

If the prosecution cannot establish intent to kill, attempted murder will not be proved. However, a conviction for another offence may still be possible. A solicitor can examine the circumstances and advise whether the evidence supports the specific allegation.

Mistaken identity and alibi

A defendant may deny involvement in the incident or argue that they were elsewhere when it occurred. Evidence such as CCTV footage, location records, witness statements or other records may help establish identity or whereabouts. The prosecution must prove that the defendant was responsible for the alleged offence.

A disputed identification should be assessed against all available evidence.

Diminished responsibility and loss of control

Diminished responsibility and loss of control are partial defences to murder in specified circumstances. They do not operate as equivalent partial defences to attempted murder. However, evidence concerning a person’s mental condition or circumstances may still be relevant to whether they formed the intention to kill or whether another defence applies.

Such issues require careful assessment, and independent expert evidence may be necessary.

A criminal defence solicitor can advise on their relevance to the particular case.

How Can a Solicitor Help with Attempted Murder?

An attempted murder allegation requires careful consideration of the evidence, particularly where the defendant’s intention is disputed.

A criminal defence solicitor can explain the charge, assess what the prosecution must prove and advise on the available options.

Early legal advice is important during a police investigation. What is said in an interview may become evidence in later proceedings, and suspects have the right to an independent legal advice at the police station.

A solicitor can also examine witness statements, medical reports, CCTV footage and other evidence. Where appropriate, independent medical or forensic experts may be instructed.

If the case proceeds to court, a solicitor can advise on possible defences, represent the defendant and explain the likely sentencing considerations.

If you or someone you know is under investigation or has been charged with attempted murder, speak to our serious and complex crimes solicitor about the circumstances and next steps.