Conspiracy

Question 1

What was held in section 67, CA 1961?

Answer 1

A person is capable of conspiriing with his or her spouse or civil union partner or with his or her spouse or civil union partner and any other person.

Question 2

What is the mens rea (mental element) necessary for a conspiracy?

Answer 2

• An intention of those involved to agree
• An intention that the relevant course of conduct should be pursued by those party to the agreement
• The offenders’ mental intent must be to commit the full offence. Where this intent does not exist, no crime has been committed.

Question 3

(MC) The mens rea, mental intent necessary for conspiracy is:

Answer 3

The offenders mental intent must be to commit the full offence. Where this intent does not exist, no crime has been committed.

Question 4

A person withdraws from the agreement. Are they still liable?

Answer 4

A person withdrawing from the agreement is still guilty of conspiracy, as are those who become party to the agreement after it had been made. However, a person can effectively withdraw before the actual agreement is made.

Question 5

What was found in R v SANDERS in relation to conspiracy ending?

Answer 5

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

Question 6

R v Cameron - Circumstantial evidence for proving intent can include:

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Matt is released from prison and discusses a burglary with Jeff and John, but he does not agree. Jeff and John are caught waiting for the shop to close. What is Matt charged with?

Answer 7

Matt should not be charged with conspiracy as he did not agree.

Question 8

What matters should be considered when interviewing ‘suspects’?

Answer 8

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

Question 9

What matters should be considered when interviewing ‘witnesses’?

Answer 9

• 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 10

When is evidence from the defendant(s) admissible for conspiracy?

Answer 10

• Anything a conspirator or party to a joint charge says or does to 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.
• The intention, of the parties involved, to 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 effected.
• 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 11

What are the reasons why laying a substantive charge and conspiracy charge are undesirable?

Answer 11

• The evidence admissible only on the conspiracy charge may have a prejudicial effect in relation to other charges
• The judge may disallow the evidence as it will be too prejudicial, i.e. the jury may assume the defendant’s guilty knowledge or intent regarding the other charge and look at the evidence, basing its assumption on the conspiracy charge
• The addition of a conspiracy charge 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. This means that each charging document may be heard at separate trials

Question 12

Kira and Rohan are in Egypt for a vacation. Whilst playing poker, Kira and Rohan discuss their immense hatred for their mutual enemy Josuke, who lives in New Zealand. Kira and Rohan agree on a plan to beat Josuke to death with their bare hands. However, when Kira gets back to New Zealand he gets cold feet and decides against murdering Josuke. Are they liable for conspiracy?

Answer 12

No. For conspiracies made overseas, a person is only amenable to the jurisdiction of New Zealand courts if they are later physically in New Zealand and act in continuance of the conspiracy.