Criminal Law

R v. Shivpuri

[1987] AC 1

Facts

Shivpuri agreed to receive a suitcase which he believed contained prohibited drugs.
He collected the suitcase and examined packages inside it.
He believed the packages contained heroin or cannabis.
He intended to distribute or deal with the substances unlawfully.
Police arrested him while the plan was being carried out.
Scientific examination showed that the packages did not contain controlled drugs.
They contained harmless material, commonly described as snuff or vegetable matter.
Shivpuri argued that he could not be guilty of attempting a drug offence because the substance was incapable of being an illegal drug.
The case required the House of Lords to reconsider its earlier decision in Anderton v. Ryan, which had recognised a defence in some impossible-attempt cases.

Whether factual impossibility is a defence to criminal attempt.
Whether Shivpuri could be convicted where the substance was harmless but he believed it to be a prohibited drug.
Whether the Court should overrule Anderton v. Ryan.

Under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, a person is guilty where:
he intends to commit an offence;
he performs an act more than merely preparatory;
the conduct would constitute the offence on the facts as he believed them to be.
Factual impossibility is not a defence.
The law focuses on:
the accused’s criminal intention; and
conduct undertaken to implement that intention.
The fact that the object does not possess the quality believed by the accused does not make the conduct innocent.
A court of final appeal may overrule a recent precedent where it is plainly wrong and distorts the statutory scheme.

Shivpuri did not merely discuss a possible drug transaction.
He received the suitcase, handled the packages and proceeded on the basis that they contained illegal drugs.
His conduct was more than merely preparatory.
Had the packages contained the substances he believed them to contain, his conduct would have constituted a drug offence.
The impossibility arose from an unknown external fact: the packages did not contain drugs.
That fact did not change:
his intention;
his belief;
the criminal character of the acts as he understood them.
The House of Lords considered it illogical that a person intending to commit a serious crime should escape attempt liability merely because the circumstances made completion impossible.
The statute expressly required the facts to be considered as the accused believed them to be.
Anderton v. Ryan had drawn an unsatisfactory distinction between:
attempting an impossible crime; and
merely imagining that innocent conduct was criminal.
Shivpuri’s conduct clearly fell into the first category: he intentionally acted to deal in what he believed were controlled drugs.
The Court therefore corrected its earlier interpretation and restored a broad approach to impossible attempts.
Liability rested on dangerous criminal purpose combined with sufficiently advanced conduct, not on the actual chemical composition of the packages.

The House of Lords held that factual impossibility was no defence.
Shivpuri was guilty of attempting the relevant drug offence.
Anderton v. Ryan was expressly overruled.
Use this case for: a person may be guilty of attempt where the offence is impossible, provided the conduct would be criminal on the facts as the accused believed them to be.