Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X8505800410 |
| Published date | 01 October 1985 |
| Date | 01 October 1985 |
| Author | John Wood |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR
SIR
JOHN
WOOD, C.B.E., LL.M.
The University
of
Sheffield,
Legal Correspondent
of
the Police Journal.
RECENT
JUDICIAL
DECISIONS
Two Appeals to the House of Lords
Two important cases, which have been dealt with in these notes,
have been reconsidered by the House of Lords. The results must be
considered.
ATTEMPTS
Anderton v. Ryan (1985) 149
J.P.
433; [1985] 2W.L.R. 968.
The defendant had a video cassette recorder in her possession.
When she got it she thought it had been stolen. The prosecution
brought no evidence that the recorder had been stolen. The
magistrates acquitted her of attempting to handle. The Divisional
Court allowed the prosecutor's appeal. The matter came before the
House of Lords as a point of general public importance.
The
difficult legal point is usually referred to as attempting the
impossible. The appeal was allowed with one Judge, Lord Edmund-
Davies, dissenting. Two speeches, by Lord Bridge and Lord
Roskill, put the majority view.
The crime in question is set out in s. 1(1) of the Criminal
Attempts Act 1981.
That
provision was enacted in reaction to R. v.
Smith
police and allowed to proceed to a motorway service station where
the goods were to be picked up.
It
was held that as the goods, now
under the control of the police, were no longer "stolen", an attempt
to handle was impossible. Lord Roskill said
that
the House of
Lords had to construe s. 1(1) by normal methods but if there
remained
doubt
regard had to be had to the mischief aimed at by
the statute. He made a preliminary point that the problem may have
been solved had the charge of handling been pursued, since the
magistrates could have convicted had they accepted
that
the
accused was handling goods she believed to have been stolen, for
there was evidence of a dishonest handling of goods
that
it could
have been inferred were stolen.
In Smith's case the House of Lords had decided a crime is not
committed where the crime is impossible because of supervening
impossibility, like the removal of a ring believed to be in a room to
the bank, or where the accused has chosen acourse of action which
if completed will not amount to a crime. So the question to be
determined is, has the
1981
Act changed this? Lord R oskill said that
the provisions of the Act should not be "over analyzed". The Act
may be said to provide, and this is a combination
ofs.
1(1)and (4),
that the actions must lead to
"an
offence, which if completed would
336 October 1985
To continue reading
Request your trial