Introduction
The case of R v Shivpuri [1987] AC 1 is a landmark decision by the House of Lords that concerns the legal concept of attempt within criminal law. A criminal attempt occurs when an individual undertakes an action with the intent to commit a crime, but the crime itself is not completed. The core principle that this case addresses centers on whether a defendant can be convicted of attempt when, due to circumstances unknown to them, the intended crime was factually impossible to commit. This situation presents technical challenges, particularly when considering the mental state of the defendant and the nature of the act itself. The ruling in R v Shivpuri is significant because it overturned a previous decision, thereby clarifying the legal criteria for establishing criminal liability for attempts, especially in cases of mistaken belief. The House of Lords in Shivpuri resolved a prior ambiguity, determining that the focus must remain on the defendant's intent and actions, rather than the objective possibility of completing the intended crime.
The Factual Background of R v Shivpuri
In R v Shivpuri, the defendant was apprehended while in possession of a suitcase. He believed the suitcase contained illegal drugs, specifically heroin or cannabis. However, subsequent examination revealed the suitcase contained a harmless, non-prohibited substance, legal snuff. The defendant, therefore, was charged with attempting to be knowingly concerned with dealing and harboring a controlled drug, contrary to Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and Section 170(1)(b) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. The key question was whether the defendant could be convicted of attempt when, unbeknownst to him, the act itself could not have led to the commission of the intended crime. The defendant’s belief in the existence of the drugs, therefore, became central to determining liability. The case brought to light an apparent contradiction within the law regarding acts that are objectively innocent but subjectively intended to be criminal.
Overruling Anderton v Ryan
The judgment in R v Shivpuri directly overruled the earlier House of Lords decision in Anderton v Ryan [1985] AC 560. In Anderton v Ryan, the defendant was charged with attempting to handle stolen goods. He handled a video cassette believing it to be stolen, but there was no evidence that the cassette was, in fact, stolen. The court held that, because the act itself was objectively innocent, the defendant could not be guilty of attempt, a decision that emphasized the objective nature of the act when determining an attempt. This ruling created a legal paradox: an individual with the intent to commit a crime could avoid conviction for an attempt if the intended crime was impossible. R v Shivpuri corrected this anomaly. In Shivpuri, Lord Bridge, who also delivered the majority opinion in Anderton v Ryan, acknowledged that the previous decision was flawed. He stated that the House of Lords had been misled regarding the Law Commission's report, which clarified the legal position regarding factual impossibility.
The Correct Interpretation of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981
The court's ruling in R v Shivpuri focused on the correct interpretation of Section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. This section outlines that a person is guilty of an attempt if, with the intent to commit an offense, they perform an act that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of that offense. The interpretation provided in Shivpuri established that the act itself does not need to be, in isolation, capable of leading to the commission of the intended crime. It is enough that the defendant intends to commit the crime and performs an action that is more than preparatory. The court determined that what turns an otherwise innocent act into a criminal attempt is the defendant's intent to commit the offense. The act performed by the defendant, therefore, is viewed in the context of their mental state and the goal they are pursuing, rather than as an isolated and objective happening.
Objective Innocence versus Subjective Intent
A significant point of contention in this area of law involves the contrast between "objective innocence" and "subjective intent". The principle established by Anderton v Ryan proposed that for an act to constitute an attempt, it must be capable of leading to the commission of the crime, an objective assessment. R v Shivpuri overturned this idea, arguing that an act considered objectively innocent, if performed with the appropriate criminal intent, could still give rise to a criminal attempt. The core of R v Shivpuri is that the mental state of the defendant is paramount. If a defendant believes they are carrying out a criminal act and takes steps to do so, that intent is what triggers criminal liability for the attempt. This perspective recognized that the culpability for an attempted crime lies in the conscious choice to act unlawfully. The shift from an objective assessment in Anderton v Ryan to a subjective assessment in R v Shivpuri has had a substantial influence on the application of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
Implications and Subsequent Case Law
The decision in R v Shivpuri has far-reaching implications for cases involving attempts to commit crimes that are factually impossible. The ruling clarifies that the impossibility of the intended crime is irrelevant if the defendant believes it to be possible and takes steps to commit it. The courts must now examine the defendant's intention rather than the objective attainability of their goal. The principle established in Shivpuri has been applied in numerous cases that have followed, further defining the interpretation of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. For example, in situations involving the handling of goods believed to be stolen but are not, or attempting to import what are believed to be controlled drugs but are not, the focus is on the intent of the defendant. R v Shivpuri has provided a framework that is consistent with the general principles of criminal liability.
Conclusion
R v Shivpuri [1987] AC 1 significantly altered the legal understanding of attempt within criminal law, by specifically overturning the prior precedent set in Anderton v Ryan. This decision established that an individual can be found guilty of attempt, even if the target crime is impossible to commit, due to an error of fact. The core legal principle that distinguishes Shivpuri from Anderton v Ryan lies in the emphasis placed on the subjective intent of the defendant, instead of the objective nature of their actions. The ruling focused on the fact that if a person intends to commit an offense and takes actions more than merely preparatory to its commission, then they can be liable for an attempt. Lord Bridge acknowledged that the decision in Anderton v Ryan was a misstep in interpreting Section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. Shivpuri clarified that the culpability for an attempt lies in the mental state of the actor; the physical possibility of committing the offense is irrelevant. This ruling created a more cohesive system, aligning the law of attempt with the general focus on mens rea within criminal law. The ruling in R v Shivpuri serves as a key example of the judiciary’s role in correcting misinterpretations of law and re-establishing principles that align with justice. This focus on intent was not only logical but also aligned with prior Law Commission reports, which had been misunderstood.
