CONSPIRACY

Question 1

Define Parties - Section 66 - Crimes Act 1961?

Answer 1

66(1) Everyone is a party to an offence who:

a) Actually, commits the offence OR
b) Does or omits an act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit the offence
c) Abets any person in the commission of the offence
d) Incites, counsels or procures any person to commit the offence.

Question 2

Actual proof of assistance is required - Parties to Offences.

Examples of assistance?

Answer 2

• Keeping lookout for someone committing a burglary
• Providing a screwdriver to someone interfering with a motor vehicle
• Telling an associate when a neighbor is away from their home so as to allow the opportunity to commit a burglary.

Question 3

A Victim has been significantly beaten an as a result died by a group of offenders (3).

Police believe they are each involved but it is not known who actually threw the blow that caused the death.

Identify and describe the case law the Court may refer to when deciding on liability.

Answer 3

R v Renata
- The Court held that where the principal offender cannot be identified, it is sufficient to prove that each individual accused must have been either the principal or a party in one of the ways contemplated in Section 66 (1).

• Each offender satisfies the ingredients of the offence committed
• Each offender satisfies the actus reus.

Question 4

What are Secondary Offenders?

Answer 4

Secondary offenders are those who assist in the principal offenders either before or during the commission of an offence are considered secondary offenders and thus their liability generally lies within the scope of Section 66(1)(b)(c) or (d).

Question 5

Define Police v Larkins?

Answer 5

Whilst it is unnecessary that the principal should be aware that he or she is being assisted, there must be proof of actual assistance.

The mere commission of an act intended to have that effect is insufficient.

Question 6

Define Aids?

Answer 6

Assists with the commission of the offence, either physically or by giving advice and information

Question 7

Define Abets?

Answer 7

Means to instigate or encourage, that is, to urge another person to commit the offence.

Question 8

Define Incites?

Answer 8

Means to rouse, stir up, stimulate, animate, urge or spur on a person to commit the offence.

Question 9

Defines Counsels?

Answer 9

Means to intentionally instigate the offence by advising a person on how best to commit an offence, or planning the commission of an offence for another’s.

Question 10

Define Procures?

Answer 10

Is setting out to see that something happens and taking the appropriate steps to ensure that it does.

Question 11

EXAMPLE:

Two Offenders Bob and Rex make a plan to rob a bank. The plan is that Bob will distract the man in order to grab his bag, whilst Rex waits in the getaway car. As it turns out, Bob actually, has to push the man to grab the bag, and it causes the man to fall over, knock his head and die.

Describe both men’s liability and explain the case law behind int.

Answer 11

An offence where no violence is contemplated and the principal offender in carrying out the common aim uses violence, a secondary offender taking no physical part in it would not be held liable for the violence used.

Question 12

What is an innocent agent?

Provide 1 example?

Answer 12

An innocent agent is someone that is unaware of the significance of their actions and cannot be convicted as a secondary party.

For Ex)
A waiter who delivers a glass of wine to a customer, not knowing there is poison in the glass.

A cleaner who is hired to clean a hotel room by a rapist, not knowing that they are destroying the evidence.

A company that is hired to move furniture, that is in fact not the customers at all and is someone’s else’s property (burglary)

Question 13

You are investigating a series of burglaries that have occurred in Pukekohe.

How might the involvement of parties to the burglaries be established?

Answer 13

• Reconstruction of the scene
• Offenders admissions
• Suspect of witness admitting to providing aid or assistance when interviewed.
• Witness providing information others were involved in the offence based on observations.
• Information received indicating others were involved in the offence
• Other factors such as CCTV results, scene of crime officers locating forensics etc.

Question 14

Can you successfully withdraw from an agreement in a Conspiracy?

Answer 14

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

Question 15

The Mens Rea, Mental intent necessary for Conspiracy…

Answer 15

• The offender’s mental intent must be to commit the full offence where this doesn’t exist, no crime has been committed

Question 16

Circumstantial evidence which intent can be inferred include (list 3)?

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Is a person capable of Conspiring with his or her spouse?

Answer 17

Yes. Section 67 - Crimes Act 1961. A person is capable of conspiring with his or her spouse or civil union partner and any other person

Question 18

Discuss the admissibility of evidence in relation to Conspiracy?

Answer 18

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 as such Conspirators should be jointly charged.

Question 19

What points should you cover when interviewing Conspiracy Witnesses?

Answer 19

Witnesses: Interview and obtain statements from witnesses covering:

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

Question 20

Why should you generally avoid laying a conspiracy charge if the Substantive Charge can be approved?

Answer 20

• The evidence admissible only 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 i.e the Jury may assume the accused guilty knowledge or intent regarding the other charge and not look at the evidence, basing its assumption on the conspiracy charge
• The addition of a conspiracy charge my unnecessarily complicate or prolong a trial.
• Where the charge of conspiracy is not founded on the evidence, or is an abuse of the process, it may be quashed.
• Severance may be ordered. This means that each charge may be held at separate trials.