R v Shivpuri
The House of Lords overruled its own decision of a year earlier, showing that the Practice Statement can be used even in criminal law.
Facts
Mr Shivpuri was arrested at Euston station carrying a suitcase containing a powder that he believed to be heroin or cannabis, which he had agreed to receive and pass on. The powder was in fact harmless vegetable matter. He was convicted of attempting to be knowingly concerned in dealing with a controlled drug, under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. In Anderton v Ryan [1985] AC 560, decided only a year earlier, the House of Lords had held that a person could not be guilty of attempting the impossible in such circumstances.
Legal principle
The House of Lords upheld the conviction and overruled Anderton v Ryan. The Criminal Attempts Act 1981 made it clear that a person can be guilty of attempt even if the facts are such that the full offence is impossible, and Anderton v Ryan had misinterpreted the Act. Lord Bridge said that the Practice Statement was an effective abandonment of the House's pretension to infallibility, and that if a serious error embodied in a decision of the House has distorted the law, the sooner it is corrected the better. He accepted that he had himself been part of the majority in Anderton v Ryan.
Related cases on judicial precedent
- Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, [2005] 2 AC 580
- Austin v Southwark London Borough Council [2010] UKSC 28, [2011] 1 AC 355
- British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877
- Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027
- Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910
- Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264
- Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349
- Knauer v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 9, [2016] AC 908
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
