|
Anderson, R v
(1986) HL
|
^[Conspiracy - no need for complete offence - some
part need be played by D]
D agreed to supply diamond wire to enable a prisoner
to escape. D did not believe the plan would succeed and intended to go
abroad after supplying the wire.
Held:
(1) Conspiracy may be committed even without
intending the agreement to be carried out.
(2) An intention to play some part in the agreed
course of conduct must be established.
Lord Bridge:
'Neither the fact that he intended to play no
further part in attempting to effect the escape, nor that he believed the
escape to be impossible would ... have afforded him any defence.'
Guilty |
|
DPP v Nock (1978) HL
|
^[Conspiracy - impossibility - no liability is
incurred for a conspiracy to commit the impossible]
D and others agreed to obtain cocaine from a quantity
of powder obtained from co-defendants. D was unaware that the powder
contained no cocaine and therefore impossible to produce cocaine.
Held: D not guilty of conspiracy to produce
cocaine.
Lord Diplock:
'to agree to pursue a course of conduct, which if
carried out in accordance with the intention of those agreeing to it,
would not amount to or involve the commission of any offence, would not
have amounted to criminal conspiracy at common law, nor does it now
constitute an offence of conspiracy under s 1 of the [Criminal Law
Act 1977].'
Not guilty. |
|
Jackson, R v (1982)
CA
|
^[Conspiracy - agreement between two or more
persons necessary to commit]
D1 and D2 agreed to shoot their friend E in the leg.
Their friend was on trial of E for burglary. If he was convicted, they
hoped it would mitigate E's sentence.
Held: All three guilty of conspiracy to
pervert the course of justice.
It does not have to be inevitable that they will
carry out the offence. If they did carry out the agreement in accordance
with the plan, there must be the commission of the offence referred to.
Guilty |
|
Knuller v DPP
(1973) HL
|
^[There exists a common law conspiracy to corrupt
public morals and outrage public decency]
D published a magazine containing advertisements for
homosexual acts amongst consenting adults.
Held:
-
'[C]onspiracy to corrupt public morals ...
really means to corrupt the morals of such members of the public as may be
influenced by the matter published' by D, with 'corrupt' being synonymous
with 'deprave' or amounting to 'conduct which a jury might find to be
destructive of the very fabric of).
-
Regarding the offence of outraging public decency:
'the substantive offence ... must be committed in public', i.e. before
more than one person. "'Outraging public decency" goes considerably beyond
offending the susceptibilities of, or even shocking, reasonable people'.
Guilty |
|
Moses and
Ansbro, R v (1991) CA |
^[Conspiracy - to defraud in public duty
situation - to act contrary to his public duty]
D1 and D2 agreed to obtain National Insurance numbers
for immigrants not entitled to the numbers. D1 was a former employee and
D2 a current employee of the DHSS.
Held: D1 and D2 were guilty of conspiracy to
defraud.
'Officers of the department who played a part in
the processing of these applications which, on the true facts ought not to
have been processed, were acting contrary to their public duty. The dictum
of Lord Diplock in his speech in Scott v Metropolitan Police
Commissioner ... deals with the point: "Where the intended victim
of a 'conspiracy to defraud' is a person performing public duties as
distinct from a private individual, it is sufficient if the purpose is to
cause him to act contrary to his public duty, and the intended means of
achieving this purpose, are dishonest. The purpose need not involve
causing economic loss to anyone".'
Guilty |
|
Scott v
Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1975) HL
|
^[Conspiracy to defraud - common law - agreement
to dishonestly deprive someone of an entitlement or to injure someone's
property right]
D agreed with employees of cinema owners to
temporarily remove films from cinema in order to make copies, without the
owners' consent, for the purposes of commercial distribution.
Held: D was guilty of conspiracy to defraud,
at common law.
-
'an agreement between two or more by dishonesty
to deprive a person of something which is his or to which he is or would
or might be entitled and an agreement by two or more to injure some
proprietary right of his, suffices to constitute the offence of conspiracy
to defraud.'
-
Deception is not a requisite element of the offence
This common law offence of conspiracy to defraud is
not replaced by the Criminal Law Act 1977 s 5(3).
Guilty |
|
Shaw v DPP (1962) HL |
^[Conspiracy to commit acts not previously
criminalised]
D published a 'Ladies Directory' containing the names
and addresses of female prostitutes and the services they provided.
Held: D was guilty of conspiracy to corrupt
public morals.
This common law offence of conspiracy corrupting
public morals is not replaced by the Criminal Law Act 1977 s 5(3).
Guilty |
|
Siracusa, R v
(1989) CA
|
^[Conspiracy - no need for complete offence - some
part need be played by D]
D and many others agreed to import prohibited drugs
over a period of time.
Held: D and others and the organisers, who
remained in the background, were guilty of conspiracy.
O'Connor LJ:
'Participation in a conspiracy is infinitely
variable: it can be active or passive.'
Guilty |
|
Wai
Yu-tsang V R (1991) Privy Council
|
^[Conspiracy - deception and economic loss are not
requisite elements of fraud]
D agreed with employees of a bank to conceal the fact
that the bank had purchased dishonoured cheques. T
He bank had done this to prevent a run on the bank.
Held: Conspiracy to defraud, is
'…not limited to the idea of economic loss, nor
the idea of depriving someone of something of value. It extends generally
to the purpose of the fraud and deceit ... If anyone may be prejudiced in
any way by the fraud, that is enough'.
Guilty |
|
Yip
Chiu-Cheung (1994) Privy Council |
^[Conspiracy - no need for complete offence - some
part need be played by D]
D met with a US undercover policeman, and arranged
for him to transport heroin from Hong Kong to Australia.
Held:
Lord Griffiths:
'The crime of conspiracy requires an agreement
between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act with the intention
of carrying it out. It is the intention to carry out the crime that
constitutes the necessary mens rea for the offence. As Lord Bridge
pointed out [Anderson] An undercover agent who
has no intention of committing the crime lacks the necessary mens rea to
be a conspirator.'
The policeman intended to traffic in drugs by
exporting the heroin (albeit for the purpose of combating drug trafficking
and with full knowledge of immunity from prosecution).
Guilty |
