Conspiracy Flashcards
Section 310 Crimes Act 1961
The elements of the offence of conspiracy are:
° conspires
° with any person
° to commit any offence or
° to do or omit, in any part of the world,
° anything of which the doing or omission in New Zealand would be an offence.
Conspires:
At the centre of a criminal conspiracy is the plan, intended objectives of the parties concerned and the agreement or consensus of the two or more people.
Mulcahy v R ~ 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 an unlawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only it is not indictable when to agree to carry it the intended offence to affect the very plot is an act in itself.
Omission: The agreement between parties concerned may also have as it’s object an omission (failure to act) as opposed to the commission of an offence and as such this must not be overlooked.
Withdrawing from the agreement:
A person withdrawing from the agreement is still guilty of conspiracy as are those people who become party to the agreement after it has been made. However a person can effectively withdraw before the actual agreement is made.
Completion of conspiracy: The offence is complete on the agreement being made with the required intent. No further progression towards the completion of the offence nor further involvement by the parties involved in the agreement is required.
When a conspiracy ends:
R v Sanders ~ 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.
Agreement requires physical and mental faculties:
Mens Rea for conspiracy is~
° 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.
Actus Reus for conspiracy is ~
The actus reus of conspiracy is the actual agreement by two or more people to carry out the illegal conduct on which the agreement is based. If this were the case it would likely equate to an attempt or the actual commission of the intended offence.
Proving intent: R v Collister.
Two or more people:
R v White ~ Where you can prove that a suspect conspired with other parties ( one or more people) whose identities are unknown, that suspect can still be convicted even if the identity of the other parties is never established and remains unknown.
Jurisdiction:
Section 7, Crimes Act 1961
For the purpose of jurisdiction, where any act or emission forming a part of any offense, or any event necessary to the completion of such an offense, occurs in New Zealand, the offense shall be deemed to be committed in New Zealand, whether the person charged with the offense was in New Zealand or not at the time of the act, omission, or event.
Conspiracy to commit an offence overseas:
Under S310 of the Crimes Act 1961, it is an offence to conspire to commit an offence or to do or a net to do anything, and any part of the world that would be an offence in New Zealand. The person has a defence if they were able to prove that the ACT is not an offence under the law of that place where it was to be committed.
Conspiracy between parties in New Zealand and other country.
The Court in R v Darwish a drug-related matter, held that we’re conspiracy is made between parties in New Zealand and another country, the court will likely take the view that the conspiracy was formed in both countries simultaneously, and given New Zealand is one of those countries in which the conspiracy falls, it would lie with the jurisdiction of the New Zealand courts.
Admissibility of evidence.
The intention, of the parties involved, to actually carry out the offence is an essential element to a conspiracy charge. There must be a common aim to commit some offence and an intention that the aim is to be affected.
Anything a conspirator or party to joint charge says does the further the common purpose is admissible against the others 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 purposes carried-out. Then, the explanation is evidence only against the person making it.
Investigative procedure
Introduction:
In the conspiracy investigation, ensure you interview everyone involved. People are often unfamiliar with the offence of conspiracy and maybe more inclined to discuss the planning of offences and that’s enable conspiracy charges to be filed where a substantive charge may not be proved.
Witnesses:
° 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.
Suspects:
Interview the people concerned, and obtain statements, to establish:
° the existence of an agreement to commit an offence or,
° the existence of an agreement to open it to do something that would amount to an offence and,
° the intent of those involved in the agreement.
° the identity of all people concerned with possible.
° whether anything was written, said or done to further the common purpose.
Charging:
Generally charges of conspiracy should not be filed in situations where the specific substantive offence can be proved.
Although in RV humphries it was suggested it may be appropriate to include a charge of conspiracy where charge of the substantive offence does not adequately represent the total criminality.
Laying both substantive charge and related conspiracy charges often undesirable because:
1) the evidence admissible only on the conspiracy charge may have a prejudicial effect in relation to other charges.
2) the judge may disallow the evidence as it will be too prejudicial i.e. the jury may assume the defendants guilty knowledge or intent regarding the other charge and not look at the evidence, basing it’s assumption on the conspiracy charge.
3) the addition of a conspiracy charge May unnecessarily complicate and prolong trial.
4) where the charge of conspiracy is not found on evidence or is an abuse of process it maybe quashed.
5) severance maybe ordered. This means that each charging document maybe heard at separate trials for example where a murder is actually committed you charge your suspect with the substantive offence murder rather than conspiracy to murder.
