Conspiracy Flashcards
What is a conspiracy?
An agreement between two or more people to commit an offence, after the intent is formed but before an attempt is made.
What four things must the Crown prove when prosecuting a charge of conspiracy?
- Two or more persons were involved,
- An agreement was made,
- The agreement was to commit an offence,
- At the time of the agreement their intention (of all parties) was to commit the offence.
What does Mulcahy v R state regarding 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…
What would be an example of the omission of an act as part of a conspiracy?
A security guard deliberately fails to lock a door that he would normally (the omission), with the aim being that his associates gain entry to commit a burglary (the offence).
Is a person who withdraws from the agreement made still guilty of conspiracy?
Yes, as are those people who become party to the agreement after it has been made. However, a person can effectively withdraw before the actual agreement is made.
When is the offence of conspiracy complete?
When the agreement is made with the required intent to carry it out.
What does R v Sanders state about when a conspiracy ends?
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.
What is considered to be the actus reus for conspiracy?
The agreement itself - the physical acts, words or gestures used by the conspirators in making their agreement.
What is considered to be the mens rea for conspiracy?
The offender’s mental intent must be to commit the full offence - where this intent does not exist no offence has been committed.
What does R v Mohan state regarding intent?
Intent involves “a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power, the commission of the offence”
What does R v Waaka state regarding intent?
A “fleeting or passing thought” is not sufficient; there must be a “firm intent or a firm purpose to effect an act”.
How is intent proven in cases of conspiracy?
Where possible, it is good practice to support any admissions or confessions as to an offender’s intent with circumstantial evidence from which their intent can also be inferred.
What three things can circumstantial evidence from which an offender’s intent may be inferred include?
- The offender’s actions and words before, during and after the event.
- The surrounding circumstances.
- The nature of the act itself.
In cases of conspiracy, how is the involvement of two or more people proven?
Circumstantially - a person cannot conspire alone, there must be at least one other conspirator for an offence to be committed, however this may include someone unable to carry out the substantive offence themselves for whatever reason.
What does R v White state regarding 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.
