1. Conspiracy

2. Overview
We have seen how groups can be prosecuted under joint
enterprise and aiding & abetting laws.
What about when a group forms a plan to commit a crime?
Conspiracy is an agreement between at least two people to
commit crime.
But no crime needs to take place. It's an inchoate offence

3. Overview
Tom, Liam, and Dave are all members of a gang
called the Criminal Justice Crew. They hold a
conference call over Skype to discuss a burglary
and all agree to burgle NatWest Bank the
following Friday. The police had bugged the call
and arrested them all before the burglary could
take place.

4. Aiding & abetting
Overview
Joint enterprise
Help, encouragement
Several
Help, encouragement
Several
etc.
participants.
etc.
participants.
Conspiracy
Joint agreement
Joint agreement
to commit crime.
to commit crime.

5. Objectives
By the end of the session, all learners will:
1) Be able to apply the principles of conspiracy
to case-studies.
2) Be able to distinguish between conspiracy,
aidong & abetting, and joint enterprise.

6. The Basics
Criminal Law Act 1977, section 1(1):
Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, if a
person agrees with any other person or persons that a course
of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried
out in accordance with their intentions, either—
(a)will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any
offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the
agreement, or
(b)would do so but for the existence of facts which render the
commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible,he
is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in
question.

7. The Basics
Section 1(2): Conspiracy requires knowledge or
intention, even if the substantive crime only requires
recklessness or strict liability.
R v Saik (2006)
D owned a bureau de change and converted loads of
stolen cash into foreign currency.
House of Lords quashed his conspiracy conviction
because he only suspected it was stolen and he had
to know.

8. The Basics
Section 2(2): You cannot be guilty of
conspiracy if you are:
a) Husband and wife
b) Under the age of criminal responsibility
c) An intended victim of the offence

9. The Basics
Common law conspiracy is preserved by the Act:
Conspiracy to defraud.
Conspiracy to corrupt public morals.

10. An Agreement
The courts have failed to define this.
Can consist of written agreements, words, or other
actions indicating agreement.
R v Walker (1962): D discussed the idea of stealing
a payroll with two others. They did not get beyond
the stage of negotiation, so Court of Appeal
quashed their convictions for conspiracy:
The parties must have reached a solid decision

11. An Agreement
The agreement must be quite specific:
R v Taylor (2002)
D agreed to import Class B drugs into the UK.
Class A drugs were actually imported.
Court stated that D had not "agreed" to this
crime.

12. An Agreement
But the courts are prepared to overlook minor details:
R v Broad (1997)
D and E formed an agreement to import a Class A drug.
D thought they'd agreed to import heroin; E thought they'd
agreed to import cocaine.
The court said this was irrelevant. They both agreed to
import a Class A drug.

13. An Agreement
There is no need to prove that all members of the
conspiracy were in contact with each other:
Wheel conspiracy: X may be in contact with D1, D2, and
D3 separately. They never meet.
Chain conspiracy: D1 talks to D2, D2 talks to D3. D1
and D3 never meet.
R v Meyrick (1929): "What has to be ascertained is always
the same matter: is it true to say...that the acts of the
accused were done in persuance of a criminal purpose held
in common between them?"

14. Wheel Conspiracy
D2
D1
X
D6
D5
D3
D4

15. Chain Conspiracy
D1
D2
D3
D4

16. With Any Other Person(s)
It takes at least two people to form a conspiracy.
R v Lovick (1993): Mrs Lovick's conviction was
quashed because only she and her husband were
involved in the agreement.
R v Chrastny (1992): Mrs Chrastny was guilty
because she conspired with her husband knowing
that he had conspired with others.

17. With Any Other Person(s)
Does not include the proposed victim of the
crime:
If John (aged 30) and Laura (aged 13) agree
to have underage sex, there is no conspiracy.

18. To Pursue a "Course of
Conduct"
Must agree on that specific course of conduct:
R v Siracusa (1989)
D conspired to import drugs. The mens rea of the
substantive offence is an intention to import any drug.
But the mens rea for conspiracy is different.
O'Connor LJ: "The essence of the crime of conspiracy
is the agreement and, in simple terms, you do not have an
agreement to import heroin by proving an agreement to
import cannabis."

19. In Accordance With Their Intentions
Intention to agree is not the same thing as an intention, or desire,
that the crime be committed:
R v Anderson (1986):
D agreed with E and F to supply diamond wire for a prison
break, along with ladders, rope and a safehouse.
He argued that he did not believe it would ever be successful
and he intended to take his payment and run off to Spain.
Court upheld his conviction. He intended to agree and didn't
need to intend or desire the prison break to be effective.

20. In Accordance With Their Intentions
Consider the following scenario and apply the R v
Anderson principle:
D is an undercover police officer who has
infiltrated the St Helens Mafia. One evening,
during a meeting at the local pool hall, he agrees
with three other people that a bank robbery
should take place the following day. D had to
agree otherwise he risked blowing his cover and
ruining the police investigation.

21. In Accordance With Their Intentions
Court of Appeal has ignored R v Anderson on several
occasions: Edwards (1991), Ashton (1992), Harvey
(1999).
R v Edwards (1991)
D agreed to supply amphetamine but there was a
possibility he intended to supply ephedrine instead.
Judge said D could only be convicted of conspiracy to
supply amphetamine if he intended to supply
amphetamine.

22. Intention to Take Part?
R v Anderson (1986) per Lord Bridge:
"Beyond the mere fact of agreement, the
necessary mens rea of the crime is, in my opinion,
established if, and only if, it is shown that the
accused, when he entered into the agreement,
intended to play some part in the agreed course of
conduct in furtherance of the criminal purpose
which the agreed course of conduct was intended
to achieve."

23. Intention to Take Part?
R v Siracusa (1989)
Court of Appeal "clarified" what Lord Bridge meant to
say in Anderson (they actually overruled him):
O'Connor LJ: D's "intention to participate was
established by his failure to stop the unlawful activity.
Lord Bridge's dictum does not require anything more."
D had been involved in a conspiracy to import drugs but
was not going to physically do anything.

24. Conditional Intent
R v Reed (1982)
D and E agreed that E would visit people
contemplating suicide.
He would assess the situation and provide faith
"healing" or help them to commit suicide.
Court said this was a conspiracy to aid & abet
suicide.

25. Summary
Conspiracy is an inchoate offence - no physical crime needs to
take place.
It involves an agreement between at least two people.
It is uncertain whether or not an intention that the crime be
committed is required.
D does not have to intend to take part in the crime.
Conspirators do not have to meet or talk to each other - wheel
and chain conspiracies.
Even if the crime is impossible, there can still be a conspiracy.