Conspiracy

Question 1

Conspiring To Commit Offence

Section 310, Crimes Act 1961

Answer 1

• Conspires
• With Any Person
• To Commit Any Offence
• To Do Or Omit, In Any Part of the World
• Anything of Which the Doing or Omission in New Zealand Would be an Offence

Question 2

Conspires

Answer 2

An agreement between two or more people to commit an offence. Which continues until they have carried out their objective or until it is abandoned.

At the centre of a criminal conspiracy is the plan (intended objective) of the parties concerned and the agreement or consensus of the two or more people.

The actual agreement need not warrant discussion or decision on how the offenders will actually go about the commission of the offence, a simple verbal agreement to commit the offence will suffice.

Question 3

Mulcahy v R - Conspires

Answer 3

A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself.

Question 4

Withdrawing From An Agreement

Answer 4

You can effectively withdraw from a conspiracy before an agreement is reached.

A person withdrawing from the agreement after it had been made is still guilty of conspiracy as are those people who became party to the agreement.

Question 5

Completion of the Offence

Answer 5

The offence is complete on the agreement being made with the required intent. No further progression towards the completion of the offence is required.

Question 6

R v Sanders - Conspiracy Ends

Answer 6

A conspiracy does not end with the making of the agreement. The conspiratorial agreement continues in operation and therefore in existence until it is ended by completion of its performance or abandonment or in any other manner by which agreements are discharged.

Question 7

Mens Rea

Answer 7

• An intention of those involved to agree AND

- An intention that the relevant course of conduct should be pursued by those party to the agreement

Question 8

Actus Reus

Answer 8

The agreement between two or more people to carry out the illegal conduct. The physical acts, words or gestures used by the conspirators in making their agreement is what is to be considered the actus reus of a conspiratorial agreement (whether expressed or implied).

Question 9

Intent

Answer 9

Deliberate act to produce a specific result

Question 10

Circumstantial Evidence

Answer 10

• Offenders actions and words before, during or after the event
• The surrounding circumstances
• The nature of the act itself

Question 11

Two or More People

Answer 11

Proven circumstantially. A person cannot conspire alone, there must be another conspirator for an offence to be committed.

This may include a person is who unable to carry out the substantive offence themselves. For example someone with a physical impediment that restricts them from committing the substantive offence. Despite such an impediment it does not lessen their involvement in any conspiracy.

Question 12

R v White - Two or More People

Answer 12

Where you can prove that a suspect conspired with other parties whose identities are unknown, that suspect can still be convicted even if the identity of the other parties is never established and remains unknown.

Question 13

Act v Omission

Answer 13

Act - To take action or do something, to bring about a particular result

Omission - the action of excluding or leaving out someone or something, a failure to fulfil a moral or legal obligation

Question 14

Defence to 310 Crimes Act 1961

Answer 14

A person has a defence to s310 if they are able to prove that the act is not an offence under the law of the place where it was to be committed.

Question 15

Conspiracy Between Parties in NZ & Other Countries

Answer 15

R v Darwish - held that where a conspiracy is made between parties in NZ and another country, the courts will likely take the view that the conspiracy was formed in both countries simultaneously. Because NZ is one of the countries, it would lie within the jurisdiction of NZ courts.

Question 16

Admissibility of Evidence

Answer 16

Anything a conspirator or party to a joint charge says or does to further the common purpose is admissible against the other involved, this being an exception to the hearsay rule and as such conspirators should be jointly charged.

However this does not include explanations made after the common purpose is carried out. Then, the explanation is evidence only against the person making it.

Question 17

Conspiracy Provisions for Certain offences

Answer 17

Treason, Piracy, Making False Accusations, Defeating Justice, Murder

Question 18

Witness Interviews

Answer 18

• The identity of the people present at the time of the agreement
• With whom the agreement was made
• What offence was planned
• Any acts carried out to further the common purpose

Question 19

Suspect Interviews

Answer 19

• The existence of an agreement to commit an offence OR
• The existence of an agreement to omit to do something that would amount to an offence, AND
• The intent of those involved in the agreement
• The identity of all people concerned where possible
• Whether anything was written, said or done to further the common purpose

Question 20

Charging

Answer 20

Although in R v Humphries it was suggested ‘it may be appropriate to include a charge of conspiracy where a charge of the substantive offence does not adequately represent the total criminality’. Laying both a substantive charge and a related conspiracy charge is often undesirable because:

• Evidence on the conspiracy charge may have a prejudicial effect in relation to other charges
• Judge may disallow the evidence as it will be too prejudicial
• May unnecessarily complicate and prolong a trial
• Where the charge of conspiracy is not founded on evidence or is an abuse of process, it may be quashed
• Severance may be ordered, charges heard at separate trials