Conspiracy Flashcards
- What is held in section 67 Crimes Act 1961?
A person is capable of conspiring with his or her spouse or civil union partner or with his or her spouse or civil union partner and any other person.
- What is the mens rea (Mental Element) necessary for a conspiracy?
• 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
• The offenders’ mental intent must be to commit the full offence. Where this intent does not exist, no crime has been committed.
- A person withdraws from the agreement, are they still liable?
• 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.
- What was found in R v SANDERS in relation to a Conspiracy ending?
• 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 matter which agreements are discharged.
- Circumstantial evidence for proving intent can include:
• The offender’s actions and words before, during, and after the event
• The surrounding circumstances
• The nature of the act itself
- Matt released from prison, discusses burglary with Jeff and John, he does not agree, Jeff and John caught waiting for shop to close, what charged?
• Matt should not be charged with conspiracy as he did not agree.
8) What matters should be considered when interviewing conspiracy suspects and witnesses?
Suspects:
1. The existence of an agreement to commit an offence, or 2. The existence of an agreement to omit to do something that would amount to an offence 3. The intent of all those involved in the agreement 4. The identity of all people concerned 5. Whether anything was written, said or done to further the common purpose
Witnesses:
1. The identity of the people present at the time of the agreement 2. With whom the agreement was made 3. What offence was planned 4. Any acts carried out to further the common purpose
9) When is evidence from the defendant(s) admissible for Conspiracy
• 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.
• 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.
10) What are reasons why laying a substantive charge and conspiracy charge are undesirable
• 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.
Q) Kira and Rohan are visiting Egypt for a well-deserved vacation. Whilst enjoying a casual game of 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?
• 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.
5) What was found in R v SANDERS in relation to a Conspiracy ending?
- 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 matter which agreements are discharged.
1) What was found in Mulcahy v R in relation to Conspiracy?
- 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 (the intended offence) into effect, the very plot is an act in itself.
3) What was held in R v White in relation to Conspiracy
- 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.
