Kembaraxtra-Case Law-Shivpuri (1987) HL

Case Summary

• Defendant (D): Convicted of attempting to deal with and harbour drugs.
• Facts: D believed he was dealing with a prohibited drug (e.g., cannabis, heroin), but the substance was actually harmless vegetable matter.

Legal Issue

• Whether an attempt to commit an "impossible" substantive offence carries liability under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

House of Lords Decision

• Overturned: Anderton v Ryan (previous decision).
• Held: Section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 must be read as it stands.
• Key Principle: An attempt to commit an impossible substantive offence carries liability.

Conditions for Liability

1. Intention: D intended to carry out the substantive offence.
2. Act: D did an act which was "more than merely preparatory."

Rejection of "Objective Innocence"

• Concept: In Anderton v Ryan, "objective innocence" suggested that if the acts were objectively innocent, no offence was committed.
• Lord Bridge's Statement: "The concept of 'objective innocence' in Anderton v Rynn, that is, the concept that if the acts were objectively innocent, then no offence is committed, 'is incapable of sensible application in relation to the law of attempts. What turns what would otherwise, from the point of view of the criminal law, be an innocent act into a crime is the intent of the actor to commit an offence ...'"
• Rationale: The subjective mental state (intent) of the accused is crucial in determining whether an offence has been committed; therefore, the concept of objective innocence has no place in criminal law concerning attempts.