Pragmatism and Theory in English Law - College of Social Sciences ...

182 Theory Beneath the Surface
the Law Commission proposals had already been tampered
with. The Bill attempted a compromise on the subject, a
compromise which had already been considered and
rejected by the Law Commission for reasons which Professor
Glanville Williams had long been arguing. Fortunately,
all was not yet lost. The Bill was referred to a
Special Standing Committee of the House of Commons
which invited Professor Williams to give evidence before it.
He tore the Bill to pieces before the Committee which was
so impressed, that the original Law Commission proposals
were substantially reinstated, 54 and the Bill was in due
course enacted as the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. That
should and would have been the end of the story, except for
the amazing decision of the House of Lords in Anderton v.
Ryan 55 which, in defiance of the manifest intention of Parliament,
as well (it might be thought) of the plain words of the
1981 Act, held that some vestiges of the impossibility
defence survived the Act. Once again, the indefatigable
Professor Williams returned.to the attack, this time with a
biting critique of the decision in an article, the title of which
posed the question, Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodios? 56 And on
this occasion, as we all know, his efforts were finally
rewarded. In R. v. Shivpuri, 57 which I referred to briefly at the
end of my last lecture, the House of Lords finally recanted,
and overruled Anderton v. Ryan. Lord Bridge, giving the
main speech, did indeed acknowledge that he had received
assistance from Professor Williams' latest onslaught,
54 See (1981) 131 New LJ. 459. The whole story of the drafting and enactment
of the Bill is to be found in Professor Griew's notes to the Act in the
Current Law Statutes Annotated for 1981.
55 [1985] 2 All E.R. 355.
56 [1986] C.L.J. 33.
57 [1986] 2 All E.R. 334.