Conspiracy Flashcards
Conspiracy Liability
Section 310 Crimes Act 1961
- 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.
R v Mulcahy
Conspires
A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more people, but in the agreement of two, to do an unlawful act or do a lawful act by unlawful means.
R v Sanders
Conspires
A conspiracy does not end with the making of an agreement. The conspiratorial agreement continues in operation and therefore in existence until it is ended by completion or abandoned.
Any person
Gender neutral term, generally accepted by judicial notice and proved by circumstantial evidence.
Offence
Any act or omission that is punishable on conviction under any enactment.
Actus Reus and Mens Rea
Actus Reus
The Actus Reus of conspiracy is the agreement between two or more parties to carry out the illegal conduct.
Mens Rea
1. An intention for those involved.
2. An intention that the relevant course of conduct should be pursued by those party to the agreement.
3. An intention to commit the full offence.
When is Conspiracy complete?
On the agreement being made with the required intent.
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 necessary for a conspiracy?
- An intention for those involved.
- An intention that the relevant course of conduct should be pursued by those party to the agreement.
- An intention to commit the full offence.
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.
Circumstantial evidence for proving intent can include:
R v Collister
- The offenders actions and words, before, during and after
- 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. They are caught waiting for shop to close. What is Matt’s liability?
Matt should not be charged as he did not agree.
What matters should be considered when interviewing conspiracy suspects and witnesses?
Suspects
1. The existence of an agreement to commit an offence.
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.
When is evidence from the defendant admissible for conspiracy?
The intention of the parties involved to actually carry out the offence as 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 conspiracy 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.
What are reasons why Lane are 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 to judicial. The jury may assume the defendants guilty knowledge or intent regarding the other charge and look at the evidence basing it assumptions on the conspiracy charge.
The addition of a conspiracy charge may unnecessarily complicate and prolong a trial.
We 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.
Keira and Rohan are visiting Egypt for a well-deserved vacation. Whilst enjoying a casual game of poker, Keira and Rohan discussed their immense hatred for their mutual enemy Josh who lives in New Zealand. Keira and Rohan agree on a plan to beat Josh to death with their bare hands. However, when Keira gets back to New Zealand he gets cold feet and decides against murdering Josh are they liable?
No for conspiracies made overseas. A person is only amendable to the jurisdiction of New Zealand courts if they are later physically in New Zealand and act in continuance of the conspiracy.
R v White
Where you can prove a suspect conspired with other parties, whose identities are unknown, that suspect can still be convicted.
R v Gemmell
The essence of the offence of conspiracy is in the agreement to complete a substantive offence. The agreement need not be carried out, but there must have been an intention that such steps be taken.
What is held in Section 7 Crimes Act 1961?
For the purpose of jurisdiction, where any act or mission 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 in charge of the offence was in New Zealand or not at the time of the act omission or event.
Conspiracy examples
Two people in New Zealand plan and agreed to commit a bombing in Australia. They have committed a conspiracy and are able to be convicted in New Zealand. Despite the intended offence being offshore. They have no defence to the charge as Australian law covers acts such as bombings.
Two people in New Zealand conspire to each take on a second wife in Saudi Arabia knowing that such activity would be unlawful in New Zealand have done here. They are not subject to conviction and New Zealand as they have a defence to the charge this is because Saudi Arabian law permits a person to have up to 4 wives.
Conspiracy between parties and New Zealand other country
The court in R v Darwish a drug related matter held that we are conspiracies made between parties in New Zealand and another country. The courts 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 within the jurisdiction of New Zealand courts.
Specific offences
The crimes at 1961 contain specific provisions for conspiracy to commit certain offences such as:
- Treason
- Piracy
- Making false acusations
- Defeating justice and murder
