In R v Shivpuri they prosecuted a bloke who thought he was smuggling heroin but was snuff

Summary: Attempt; impossibility; importation of prohibited drugs
It is no defence for a defendant charged with a criminal attempt for him to say that it would in fact have been impossible to commit the crime ( Anderton v Ryan [1985] A.C. 560 overruled). The appellant was tried on counts of attempting to be knowingly concerned in dealing with and harbouring a controlled drug, namely heroin, contrary to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s.1(1) and the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 s.170(1)(b) . He was carrying a package containing a powdered substance and more such was found at his flat. The prosecution case was that he admitted having drugs in police interview and in a statement under caution stated that he very deeply suspected that the substance was heroin. In fact it was a vegetable material akin to snuff. In evidence he denied making any admission and denied that the statement under caution amounted to a confession. He was found guilty and appealed on the grounds that because the substance was not a drug he could not be guilty in law. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal and by the House of Lords.
Held, that (1) in order to prove a charge under s.170(1) of the 1979 Act of being knowingly concerned in harbouring or dealing with goods the importation of which was prohibited, it was sufficient to prove that the person knew that the goods concerned were prohibited goods and no proof was required that he knew the goods to be of a particular category, irrespective of the different penalties attaching to the importation of different categories of prohibited goods. Accordingly, it was immaterial that the appellant was unsure of the exact nature of the substance in his possession, in that in any event he believed he was dealing with controlled drugs the importation of which was prohibited ( R. v Hussain (Mohammed Blayat) [1969] 2 Q.B. 567 approved); (2) on the true construction of s.1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 the actus reus of the statutory offence of attempt required an act which was more than merely preparatory to the commission of an offence and which the defendant did with the intention of committing an offence, notwithstanding that the commission of the actual offence was, on the true facts, impossible. The appellant had on the facts of the case been rightly convicted

Posted By: Old Git on January 28th 2016 at 18:50:06

Message Thread

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.

Log in