Anderton v Ryan

Anderton v Ryan [1985] is a House of Lords case in English criminal law (in the highest court of the land at the time), on whether an act which would amount to an offence but which by virtue of a misunderstanding of the goods involved was impossible (nonetheless a fully believed offence by the perpetrator at the time, specifically of purchasing posited stolen goods) breaks section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981; the court established against a similar defendant the next year that the reverse should hold true in future (per R v Shivpuri).

Anderton v Ryan
CourtHouse of Lords
Decided9 May 1985
Citation(s)[1985] AC 560; 2 WLR 968; 2 All ER 355; 81 Cr App R 166, HL(E)
Legislation citedCriminal Attempts Act 1981
Case history
Prior action(s)Conviction upheld in a law-reported decision of the Divisional Court of the High Court (Queens Bench Decision)
[1985] AC 560; [1985] 2 WLR 23; [1985] 1 All ER 138; 80 Cr App R 235, DC (later "followed" (confirmed to be correct))
Keywords
  • Attempt
  • Mistaken belief
  • handling or purchasing stolen goods
  • legitimate goods
  • Overturned English legal precedents

Facts

A woman purchased a video cassette recorder (VCR) on the belief that it was stolen. She reported an unrelated burglary in her house to the police. While they were investigating the burglary, she confessed to having purchased the VCR she believed to be stolen. No evidence was found to confirm that the VCR had been stolen. She was convicted of attempted handling of stolen goods.[1]

Judgment

The court convened 13 months and five days after the law-reported decision of the quickly referred conviction to the Divisional Court of the High Court, Queens Bench Division (from the local magistrates initial decision). The skipping out of the Court of Appeal is as the case was cleared in timetables and administratively for a "leapfrog appeal" (direct to the House of Lords).

The House of Lords decided that impossibility was not within the scope of the offence under s1(2) of the Criminal Attempts Act (nor any other residual offence from earlier legal precedents).

Significance

The case R v Shivpuri reversed the decision a year later and represents an example of the House of Lords Judicial Committee reversing its jurisprudence[2] under the Practice Statement 1966.

gollark: I like it more than the male, but find both a bit too gaudy or whatever.
gollark: I don't actually like what golds look like, but aim to get CB ones because ***raaaaaaaaaaaare***.
gollark: People's perception of value/beauty is tainted by rarity.
gollark: If in doubt, just say "jewelinator".
gollark: Wow, loads of people want arcanæ now.

See also

Notes
  1. John Child; David Ormerod (2017). Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Essentials of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. p. 428. ISBN 978-0-19-878868-3.
  2. Gary Slapper; David Kelly (26 June 2009). English Law. Routledge. p. 57. ISBN 978-1-135-21737-2.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.