Conspiracy

Question 1

For a conviction the Crown must prove…

Answer 1

1. Two or more persons involved
2. An agreement was made
3. The agreement was to commit an offence
4. At the time of agreement their intention was to commit the offence

Question 2

Discuss the findings in Mulcahy v R in regards to the definition of ‘conspires’.

Answer 2

“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 ….”

Question 3

According to the findings in R v Sanders, when does a conspiracy end?

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Define intent.

Answer 4

A person does something “intentionally” if they mean to do it; they desire a specific result and act with the aim or purpose of achieving it.

Question 5

Discuss the findings of R v White in regards to two or more people.

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

What are the two parts of the mens rea of conspiracy?

Answer 6

• 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.

Question 7

What is the actus reus of conspiracy?

Answer 7

is the actual agreement by two or more people to carry out the illegal conduct

Question 8

What does the Crimes Act legislate in terms of the ability of conspiring with a spouse or partner? Just key words and ideas. Not verbatim.

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

What is the wording in the legislation for the offence?

Answer 9

Section 310(1), Crimes Act 1961

every one who 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

Question 10

Where do you find the legislative defence to conspiracy and what is that defence?

Answer 10

Section 310(3)

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.

Question 11

Give three examples of circumstantial evidence from which intent may be inferred.

Answer 11

• the offender’s actions and words before, during and after the event
• the surrounding circumstances
• the nature of the act itself.

Question 12

List the must know cases for conspiracy.

Answer 12

Mulcahy v R (agreement)
R v Sanders (when conspiracy ends)
R v White (unknown identities)

Question 13

A conspiracy is made with one of the parties being disabled and unable to carry out the substantive offence. Can this they still commit the offence of conspiracy?

Answer 13

Yes.

Question 14

Is ignorance of the law a defence?

Answer 14

No. Do not need to know it’s an offence but do need to know its unlawful.