Deutsch ran a company, and put an advertisement in the paper looking for "secretary-sales assistants to the sales executive". When women came in to interview, he told them that they would have to have sexual intercourse with clients if it was required to secure a contract. However, this could result in bonuses of up to $100,000 a year. An undercover police officer went in for an interview and had the same experience. No one was hired under the ad. Deutsch was charged with attempting to procure females for illicit intercourse with other persons contrary to s.195(1)(a) of the Code (now s.212). He was convicted at trial, but a new trial was ordered on appeal.
- What constitutes "mere preparation"?
Le Dain, writing for the majority, states that the general section dealing with the elements of attempt is s.24. The issue in this case is if there was the necessary intent; were the accused's actions enough to lead to a conviction for intent, or were they merely preparatory actions? He agrees with Martin in the Court of Appeal that the holding out of large financial rewards for the applicants was capable of satisfying the actus reus of an attempt to procure the women to have illicit sexual intercourse contrary to s.212. In general, the actus reus for attempt must be some step towards the actual commission of the crime that goes beyond mere acts of preparation. In this case the actual crime could not be committed until one of the women actually had sex with another person; however, his offering financial rewards was a step in attempting to make this action occur.
- The actus reus for attempt must be some step towards the actual commission of the crime that goes beyond mere acts of preparation.
- The distinction between preparation and attempt is qualitative and dependent on the relative proximity of the act (in time, location and between the acts under the control of the accused remaining to be accomplished) to the nature of the completed offence.