Conspiracy Flashcards
Conspiring to commit an offence - liability (elements and section)
Crimes Act - 310
-conspires
-with any person
-to commit any offence
OR
-to do or omit in any part of the world
- anything off which the doing or omission in New Zealand should be an offence
Conspires - case law
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 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 plot is an act in itself.
Omission
Failure to act - eg security guard
When conspiracy ends - case law
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 an any other manner by which agreements are discharged
Mental elements necessary for conspiracy:
- intention of those involved to agree
AND - an intention that the relevant course of conduct should be pursued by those party to the agreement
Need to have the intention to commit the full offence.
Actus reus
The actual agreement by two or more to carry out illegal conduct.
Is passive presence or knowledge of an intention a party to the conspiracy?
No - need to commit the act of entering the agreement and the mental intention to be involved
Two or more people - case law
R V WHITE
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.
Jurisdiction
Need not be in NZ at the time of the Act, omission or event.
Section 7 CA 61:
For the purpose of jurisdiction, where any act or omission forming part of any offence, or any event necessary to the completion of any offence, occurs in New Zealand, the offence shall be deemed to be committed in New Zealand, whether the person charged with the offence was in New Zealand or not at the time of the act, omission, or event.
R V Sander - sufficient if one act or omission occurs in NZ.
Conspiracy- Stat Defence
S310(3) - CA 1961
Where under this section any one is charged with conspiring to do or omit anything anywhere outside New Zealand, it is a defence to prove that the doing or omission of the act to which the conspiracy relates was not an offence under the law of the place where it was, or was to be, done or omitted.
Admissibility of evidence
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 hearsay rule and as such conspirators should be jointly charged.
Why laying both a substantive charge and a related conspiracy charge is undesirable:
- The evidence admissible only on the conspiracy charge may have a prejudicial effect in relation to the other charges.
- The judge made allow the evidence as it will be too prejudicial, the jury may assume the defendant, guilty knowledge or intent regarding the other charge and not look at the evidence.
- The edition of the conspiracy charge may unnecessarily complicate and prolonged a trial
-Severance may be ordered. This means that each charging document may be heard at separate trials.
When interviewing a conspiracy suspect what should you consider?
-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 those involved in the agreement
If anything was written, said or done to further the common purpose
-The identity of all people concerned where possible
