R v Shivpuri [1986]
Share
R v Shivpuri [1986] UKHL 2 is a landmark House of Lords case addressing the issue of whether a criminal attempt, involving an act that was "more than merely preparatory" and had the requisite mens rea, but was ultimately impossible to complete due to a misunderstanding of the facts, could still constitute an attempt to commit a crime. The House of Lords overruled the decision in Anderton v Ryan [1985], holding that a mistaken belief by the defendant that he was committing an illegal act, which was, in fact, innocent, could render him liable for an attempt, even if the act was not, in reality, illegal.
The defendant, while visiting India, was offered £1,000 to receive a suitcase upon his return to England. The suitcase, delivered by a courier, contained packages of a substance that the defendant was instructed to distribute. He followed the instructions to deliver a package to a third party. Outside Southall station, both the defendant and the man he was meeting were arrested. A package containing a powdered substance was found in the defendant's shoulder bag. When customs officers later searched the defendant's flat in Cambridge, they found the suitcase with packages of the same powdered substance. The defendant made a full confession, believing the packages contained either heroin or cannabis. However, when the powdered substance was scientifically analysed, it was found to be neither heroin nor cannabis, but rather snuff or a similar harmless vegetable matter. Despite the absence of actual illegal substances, the defendant was convicted of attempting to commit a drug offence under Section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and applied the Practice Statement of 1966 to depart from their previous judgment, explicitly overruling the decision in Anderton v Ryan [1985]. Lord Bridge, delivering the judgment, acknowledged that the majority in Anderton v Ryan [1985] was wrong. He criticised the concerns raised in Anderton v Ryan [1985] about unusual cases amounting to attempts, such as the example of a man having intercourse with a girl over 16, believing her to be under that age. Lord Bridge argued that such cases, according to the Law Commission's 1980 report, are indeed guilty attempts but are unlikely to be prosecuted.
Lord Bridge rejected the idea of drawing a sensible distinction between acts of objective innocence and those that are not. He argued that any attempt to commit an offence, which involves an act more than merely preparatory but fails for any reason, must be considered objectively innocent. However, what turns an otherwise innocent act into a crime is the intent of the actor to commit the offence.
Lord Bridge criticised the House of Lords in Anderton v Ryan [1985], stating that they had been misled by the prosecution regarding the opinion of the Law Commission in its 1980 report. This case, therefore, represents a significant shift in the understanding of the law on criminal attempts, emphasising the importance of the defendant's intent rather than the objective legality of the act, even when the crime is impossible to complete due to the true nature of the circumstances.
The defendant, while visiting India, was offered £1,000 to receive a suitcase upon his return to England. The suitcase, delivered by a courier, contained packages of a substance that the defendant was instructed to distribute. He followed the instructions to deliver a package to a third party. Outside Southall station, both the defendant and the man he was meeting were arrested. A package containing a powdered substance was found in the defendant's shoulder bag. When customs officers later searched the defendant's flat in Cambridge, they found the suitcase with packages of the same powdered substance. The defendant made a full confession, believing the packages contained either heroin or cannabis. However, when the powdered substance was scientifically analysed, it was found to be neither heroin nor cannabis, but rather snuff or a similar harmless vegetable matter. Despite the absence of actual illegal substances, the defendant was convicted of attempting to commit a drug offence under Section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and applied the Practice Statement of 1966 to depart from their previous judgment, explicitly overruling the decision in Anderton v Ryan [1985]. Lord Bridge, delivering the judgment, acknowledged that the majority in Anderton v Ryan [1985] was wrong. He criticised the concerns raised in Anderton v Ryan [1985] about unusual cases amounting to attempts, such as the example of a man having intercourse with a girl over 16, believing her to be under that age. Lord Bridge argued that such cases, according to the Law Commission's 1980 report, are indeed guilty attempts but are unlikely to be prosecuted.
Lord Bridge rejected the idea of drawing a sensible distinction between acts of objective innocence and those that are not. He argued that any attempt to commit an offence, which involves an act more than merely preparatory but fails for any reason, must be considered objectively innocent. However, what turns an otherwise innocent act into a crime is the intent of the actor to commit the offence.
Lord Bridge criticised the House of Lords in Anderton v Ryan [1985], stating that they had been misled by the prosecution regarding the opinion of the Law Commission in its 1980 report. This case, therefore, represents a significant shift in the understanding of the law on criminal attempts, emphasising the importance of the defendant's intent rather than the objective legality of the act, even when the crime is impossible to complete due to the true nature of the circumstances.
