What did R v Shivpuri decide?

A person can be guilty of attempting a crime even if completing the crime was impossible on the true facts (e.g., the 'drugs' were harmless snuff).

Which case was overruled?

Anderton v Ryan was overruled. Objective impossibility is not a defence to attempt.

What must the prosecution prove for attempt?

An act more than merely preparatory and an intention to commit the full offence, under Section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

Why is this case important for students?

It shows that the law punishes dangerous intent plus decisive steps, even when the object is not what it seems.

Is belief about the substance relevant?

Yes. The accused’s belief that the substance was a controlled drug supported the intention for the attempt.

R v Shivpuri

R v Shivpuri [1987] AC 1

House of Lords 1987 [1987] AC 1 Criminal Law (Attempts) Reading: ~7 min India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi Published: 02 Nov 2025

CASE_TITLE: R v Shivpuri PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: R v Shivpuri, impossible attempt, Criminal Attempts Act 1981 SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Anderton v Ryan, more than merely preparatory, intention PUBLISH_DATE: 02-11-2025

Quick Summary

In R v Shivpuri, the House of Lords held that a person can be guilty of an attempt even if the full crime was impossible on the facts. Shivpuri believed he was handling illegal drugs and took clear steps to distribute them. The substance turned out to be snuff. Still, because he intended the crime and did more than mere preparation, his conviction for attempt stood.

Citation: [1987] AC 1 · Area: Criminal Attempts

```

Issues

Can a person be convicted of attempt when completing the crime was impossible (the “drug” was harmless)?

Rules

Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s.1: (1) an act that is more than merely preparatory; and (2) an intention to commit the full offence.
Impossibility no defence: If the accused believes facts that would make the act a crime and takes decisive steps, attempt liability can arise even if the object is harmless.

Timeline illustration of events in R v Shivpuri

Facts (Timeline Style)

Offer in India: Desai offers £1,000 if Shivpuri receives a suitcase in England and distributes “drugs”.

Delivery in Cambridge: Suitcase arrives with packages for later handover.

Southall Station (30 Nov 1982): Following instructions, Shivpuri goes to deliver a package; he is arrested with a powder in his bag.

Confession: He admits he acted as recipient and distributor for what he believed were illegal drugs.

Analysis: The powder is not a controlled drug—only snuff/harmless vegetable matter.

Arguments

Appellant

The object was harmless; the full offence was impossible.
Therefore, there can be no attempt to distribute a controlled drug.
Relied on Anderton v Ryan (objective innocence).

Respondent (Crown)

What matters is intent plus acts beyond mere preparation.
The accused believed he possessed drugs and took decisive steps to distribute.
Impossibility should not defeat attempt liability.

Judgment

The House of Lords upheld the conviction. It ruled that it is no defence that the full offence was impossible on the true facts. The Court expressly overruled Anderton v Ryan. Dangerous intent plus acts more than preparatory are enough for attempt.

Attempt to deal with controlled drugs: Conviction Upheld
Reason: Impossibility does not negate attempt where intention and decisive steps are proved.

Ratio Decidendi

If the accused intends to commit an offence and performs acts that are more than merely preparatory, liability for attempt arises even if the offence could not be completed because the facts were not as believed.

Why It Matters

Protects the public by punishing dangerous intent plus concrete steps.
Clarifies that impossibility is not a loophole for attempt crimes.
Key authority for exams on attempts under the 1981 Act.

Key Takeaways

Intent + steps beyond preparation = attempt, even if impossible.
Anderton v Ryan is overruled; objective innocence fails.
Belief about facts can support attempt liability.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: I.M.P. — Intent, More than prep, Possible or not.

Intent to commit the offence.
More than merely preparatory acts.
Possibility is irrelevant if belief + steps are proved.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Is a person guilty of attempt when the completed offence was impossible because the substance was harmless?
Rule	Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s.1: intention + acts more than merely preparatory; impossibility is no defence.
Application	Shivpuri believed he had drugs and acted to distribute them; his steps went beyond preparation despite the harmless reality.
Conclusion	Conviction for attempt upheld; impossibility irrelevant.

Glossary

Attempt: Liability for trying to commit a crime where intent and decisive steps are proven.
More than Merely Preparatory: Acts that move from planning to execution—crossing the line into doing.
Impossibility: When the full offence cannot happen on the facts; under this case, that is not a defence to attempt.