Anderton v Ryan [1985] AC 560
The case of Anderton v Ryan [1985] AC 560 serves as a critical examination of the legality of attempted crimes under English law, making it an essential study for law students. This case addresses the complexities of criminal intent and the factual impossibility of committing a crime, offering valuable insights into criminal jurisprudence.
Facts
Ryan bought a video recorder in circumstances in which she believed it was stolen. The prosecution could not establish that the recorder was in fact stolen, so the proceedings concerned an attempt to handle stolen goods rather than the completed offence. The case reached the House of Lords on the interpretation of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. The question was whether her dishonest belief and conduct were enough even though, on the actual facts as treated in the proceedings, the recorder could not support a completed handling offence.
Legal Issue
Could Ryan be guilty of attempting to handle stolen goods when she believed the recorder was stolen but the prosecution could not establish that it was?
Held
The House of Lords held that Ryan was not liable for the attempted offence on its interpretation of the 1981 Act. The majority treated the provisions on impossibility as insufficient to turn the conduct into an attempt merely because she believed the circumstances made it criminal.
That historical interpretation did not survive. In R v Shivpuri the following year, the House of Lords expressly departed from Anderton, recognising that the statutory scheme permits liability despite factual impossibility when the required criminal intention and conduct are present. A summary must preserve what Anderton decided while making its subsequent rejection unmistakable. It cannot be used as the governing answer to a modern impossible-attempt problem.
⭐ Legal Principle
Anderton historically excluded liability for the impossible attempt on its facts, but was expressly overruled by R v Shivpuri. Under the later approach, factual impossibility does not by itself defeat attempt liability where the statutory requirements concerning intention and conduct are satisfied.
Significance
Anderton is principally valuable as an example of precedent being reconsidered promptly and of the difficulties created by impossible attempts. Its teaching role depends on comparison with Shivpuri, rather than presenting the rejected interpretation as current law. Students should still distinguish a factual mistake about circumstances from merely believing that legally innocent conduct is prohibited. The later decision does not criminalise every act the defendant personally regards as unlawful.
Common exam questions about this case
What did Anderton decide at the time?
The House of Lords rejected liability for the attempted handling offence where the recorder was not established to be stolen. Its interpretation of the 1981 Act treated Ryan's belief as insufficient to make the conduct an attempt on those facts. That historical holding was subsequently rejected in Shivpuri.
Can Anderton determine an impossible-attempt problem today?
No. Shivpuri expressly overruled it. The later approach permits liability despite factual impossibility where the relevant intention and conduct requirements are met. An exam answer that stops at Anderton would therefore apply a superseded interpretation, even if it describes the original decision accurately.
Does Shivpuri make a mistaken belief that something is illegal enough?
No. The distinction is between a mistake about facts which, if as believed, would amount to an offence, and a mistaken belief about what the law prohibits. Attempt liability still requires an actual statutory offence, the required mental element and conduct beyond mere preparation on the appropriate analysis.