House of Lords
| Published date | 01 February 1986 |
| Date | 01 February 1986 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201838605000103 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
HOUSE
OF
LORDS
A
lTEMPT
AND IMPOSSIBILITY
Andertonv. Ryan
In Anderton v. Ryan [1985]2
W.L.R.
968, the House of Lords was
called upon for the first time to determine the true construction of
section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 which provides that:
"(1)
If
with intent to commit an offence to which this section
applies, aperson does an act which is more than merely prepara-
tory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to
commit the offence; (2) A person may be guilty of attempting to
commit an offence to which this section applies even though the
facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible; (3)
In any case
where-(a)
apart from this subsection aperson's
intention would not be regarded as having amounted to an intent to
commit an offence; but (b) if the facts of the case had been as he
believed them to be, his intention would be so regarded then, for
the purposes of subsection (1) above, he shall be regarded as having
had an intent to commit that offence; (4) This section applies to any
offence which if it were completed,would be triablein England and
Wales as an indictable offence
...
"Although, as Lord Edmund-
Davies recognised in the present case, "
...
it was and is common
knowledge that
...
Parliament intended by the Act of 1981 that a
person who dishonestly handles stolen goods, mistakenly believing
that theyare stolengoods, shall for the future be liable to conviction
for attempted handling" (p. 971), the majority ruling in the present
case makes it clear that such intention has not been achieved.
The defendant was charged, inter alia, with attempting to
dishonestly handle a video cassette recorder, knowing or believing
it to be stolen, contrary to section 1(1)
ofthe
1981Act. The justices
found that the defendant believed the video recorder was stolen
goods when she received it into her possession, but the prosecution
did
not
adduceany evidence thatthe goods had,in fact, been stolen.
The
prosecutor invited the justices to convict the defendant on the
basis that even though they could not prove that the video recorder
47
To continue reading
Request your trial