perpetrator’s conduct can be considered to be aimed at the completion of the
offence.
In a pertinent case the defendants were arrested in a stolen car with forged
license plates in front of an exchange office. They were wearing wigs and the police
also found guns and handcuffs inside the car. However, the Supreme Court acquit-
ted the defendants as the outward manifestation of their conduct (sitting in a car,
wearing wigs) could not be considered to be aimed at the completion of the
offence yet.
German Approach Finally, Section 22 of the German Criminal Code holds that
attempt liability will arise once the perpetrator, according to his conception of the
plan, takes immediate steps towards the completion of the offence. Notice that in
German law the subjective conception of the perpetrator as to what exactly he is
doing seems to carry more weight than for instance in England and the Netherlands.
As a test German courts have developed the so-called “Here we go!” threshold. In
assessing liability they ask if according to the plans of the perpetrator he had
already begun to engage in the crime proper and has subjectively transgressed the
“Here we go stage”.
In a pertinent case the defendants had agreed to rob the owner of a petrol station.
They drove to his house and rang the doorbell, gun in hand and wearing ski masks.
However, the door remained closed and after a neighbor had spotted them, they
abandoned the attempt. The Supreme Court, applying the aforementioned formula
convicted the defendants of attempted robbery, as they had subjectively
transgressed the “Here we go” threshold.
7.9 Criminal Substantive Law and Criminal Procedural Law
The rules of substantive criminal law determine the scope of criminal liability, the
conducts to be punished, and the punishment for each. What then if the criminal law
is violated? The answer is straightforward: the culprit will be punished for the
misdeed he committed. However, establishing when someone is a culprit is not
easy.
Take the example opening this chapter: the murderer is clearly Mr. John B. but at first the
police believe that it was Mr. M. who poisoned his wife and they pursue this initial
intuition. Were it not for the subsequent trial, the wrong man would have been convicted.
Convicting an individual for a crime is a serious matter, giving the harsh
consequences it bears on a man’s life in terms of punishment and social stigma.
This is why a decision of guilt must be taken only after the most careful assessment.
The function of criminal procedure is not solely to convict the guilty but equally, if
not predominantly, to distinguish the innocent from the guilty. Procedural rules
144 J. Keiler et al.