This is the leading authority on impossible attempts under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. The House of Lords held that a defendant can be guilty of attempting to commit an offence even where the completed offence is impossible on the true facts. Crucially, the House overruled Anderton v Ryan, using the Practice Statement, restoring the law to the principle that what matters is the defendant’s intent and actions, not whether the offence was objectively capable of completion. The case confirms the statutory effect of s1(2) and the deeming rule in s1(3). 

• Shivpuri agreed to receive and distribute what he believed to be Class A drugs (heroin) imported from India for a £1,000 fee.

• He received a suitcase containing multiple packages of a powder.

• He admitted in interview and in a typed statement that he believed the substance was heroin or cannabis.

• Police analysis showed the substance was not a controlled drug but harmless vegetable matter akin to snuff.

• He was charged with attempting to be knowingly concerned in dealing with and harbouring a Class A controlled drug contrary to s1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and s170(1)(b) Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

• He was convicted and appealed.

Whether a defendant can be guilty of an attempt when:

1. He intends to commit an offence;

2. He does acts more than merely preparatory;

3. But completion of the offence is impossible because the object of the offence does not exist (here, no actual drugs).

This raised the certified question:
Does s1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981 allow conviction where the offence would have been committed if the facts were as the defendant believed them to be, even though the offence was impossible on the true facts?

• Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

• Under s1(2), impossibility is no defence where the defendant intends to commit the offence and performs acts more than merely preparatory.

• Under s1(3), intention is assessed based on the defendant’s belief about the facts.

• Shivpuri intended to commit the full offence as he believed the substance to be heroin or cannabis.

• His acts (receiving, storing, delivering packages) were more than merely preparatory.

• Therefore, he was guilty of the attempt despite the substance being harmless.

• Anderton v Ryan was wrongly decided and is overruled.

1. Impossibility is not a defence to attempt:
   If the defendant intends to commit an offence and does acts more than merely preparatory, he is guilty even when the full offence is impossible on the true facts (s1(2)).

2. Intent is judged by the defendant’s belief about the facts (s1(3)).

3. The actus reus of attempt is an act more than merely preparatory to the offence intended, not the offence actually capable of occurring.

4. Anderton v Ryan is overruled as a serious error; the law must reflect Parliament’s clear words.

5. A person who takes steps towards committing what would be a crime if the facts were as he believed them to be commits the offence of attempt.