INCHOATE OFFENCES
CONSPIRACY
Note: always state the crime – e.g. ‘conspiracy to rob’.
For problem question, you can write ‘R v Henry and Tim (conspiracy)’.
S1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977- ‘subject to the following provisions, if a party agrees with
any other person or persons, that a course of conduct should be pursued, which, if
the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, either-
(a) will necessarily amount to, or involve the commission of any offence or offences
by one or more of the parties to the agreement; or
(b) would do so, but for the existence of facts that render the commission of the
offence or any of the offences impossible;
-He is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence, or offences in question
ACTUS REUS
AN AGREEMENT TO A -Always specify what offence has been agreed.
COURSE OF CONDUCT,
THAT WILL -R v Walker: agreement = more than a mere discussion –
NECESSARILY AMOUNT beyond the stage of negotiations.
TO, OR INVOLVE AN -Discuss what you are going to do (e.g. shoplift – what
OFFENCE BETWEEN shops / what times), but actual details do not need to be
TWO OR MORE PEOPLE agreed.
-DPP v Doot: no need for parties to have taken steps to
carry out the agreement.
-R v Nock: no need to agree and settle all details of the
offence in question.
Note- people who cannot S2(2) CLA 1977-
conspire: (a)- spouses;
(b)- a person under the age of criminal responsibility (age 10);
(c)- an intended victim of that offence.
-R v Chrastney: involved a conspiracy between three people-
two were married – all three of them could be guilty of
conspiracy because there was a third person that the couple
were not married to, and they had both conspired with that
person valid conspiracy between two people who are
not subject to bar in S2(2).
Wheel and Chain conspiracies not necessary to show
that the person’s accused of conspiring together were in
direct communication with one another.
, MENS REA
Intention (aim or purpose) to reach an agreement two
possible alternatives:
* Make sure you have this 1. INTENTION TO AGREE THAT THE OFFENCE BE
debate in problem COMMITTED:
question discuss both R v Anderson, HOL: D agreed to help his cell mate escape
approaches, but ultimately from prison by handing over some diamond cutter to his
agree with McPhillips and associates when released from prison pleaded NG to
co- need intent for conspiracy:
conspiracy offence to be -Said that he did not intend for the offence to be committed
committed. because it was such a ridiculous plan it was never going to
work.
-Lord Bridge: said that Parliament would not have
intended someone to escape liability on the basis of lack of
intent- ‘I am clearly driven to reject any construction of
statutory language that would require the Prosecution to
prove an intention on the part of each conspirator, that
the criminal offence will necessarily be committed, if the
course of conduct should in fact be committed’.
-No need for D to intend that offence actually be
committed – didn’t matter it was never going to work.
-Note: case critiqued- unlikely to be applied in future because
clearly wrong Bridge appeared to be stretching law to
uphold conviction.
R v McPhillips, Court of Appeal: charged with conspiracy to
murder (bombing a hotel)- pleaded NG- said he was going to
help plant bomb, but phone hotel after with warning bomb had
been planted.
-Trial Judge: said defence could be ignored because of R v
Anderson- no need for intention for offence to be committed-
guilty.
-Court of Appeal: intention to agree is at the heart of the
agreement – need to intend for offence to be committed-
if D did not intend for the murder to be carried out, he is
NG.
-Lowry, LJ: ‘the offence of statutory conspiracy assumes the
existence of an intention of the parties to carry out the
agreement – on the facts here, the result (murder) would not
have been in accordance with the intention of D- not guilty of
conspiracy to murder… the guilty act is the agreement that
the crime will be committed, the guilty mind is the intention
that the crime will be committed’.
R v Edwards / R v Ashford – Court of Appeal: D agreed to
supply drugs- did not intend to carry out agreement.
CONSPIRACY
Note: always state the crime – e.g. ‘conspiracy to rob’.
For problem question, you can write ‘R v Henry and Tim (conspiracy)’.
S1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977- ‘subject to the following provisions, if a party agrees with
any other person or persons, that a course of conduct should be pursued, which, if
the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, either-
(a) will necessarily amount to, or involve the commission of any offence or offences
by one or more of the parties to the agreement; or
(b) would do so, but for the existence of facts that render the commission of the
offence or any of the offences impossible;
-He is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence, or offences in question
ACTUS REUS
AN AGREEMENT TO A -Always specify what offence has been agreed.
COURSE OF CONDUCT,
THAT WILL -R v Walker: agreement = more than a mere discussion –
NECESSARILY AMOUNT beyond the stage of negotiations.
TO, OR INVOLVE AN -Discuss what you are going to do (e.g. shoplift – what
OFFENCE BETWEEN shops / what times), but actual details do not need to be
TWO OR MORE PEOPLE agreed.
-DPP v Doot: no need for parties to have taken steps to
carry out the agreement.
-R v Nock: no need to agree and settle all details of the
offence in question.
Note- people who cannot S2(2) CLA 1977-
conspire: (a)- spouses;
(b)- a person under the age of criminal responsibility (age 10);
(c)- an intended victim of that offence.
-R v Chrastney: involved a conspiracy between three people-
two were married – all three of them could be guilty of
conspiracy because there was a third person that the couple
were not married to, and they had both conspired with that
person valid conspiracy between two people who are
not subject to bar in S2(2).
Wheel and Chain conspiracies not necessary to show
that the person’s accused of conspiring together were in
direct communication with one another.
, MENS REA
Intention (aim or purpose) to reach an agreement two
possible alternatives:
* Make sure you have this 1. INTENTION TO AGREE THAT THE OFFENCE BE
debate in problem COMMITTED:
question discuss both R v Anderson, HOL: D agreed to help his cell mate escape
approaches, but ultimately from prison by handing over some diamond cutter to his
agree with McPhillips and associates when released from prison pleaded NG to
co- need intent for conspiracy:
conspiracy offence to be -Said that he did not intend for the offence to be committed
committed. because it was such a ridiculous plan it was never going to
work.
-Lord Bridge: said that Parliament would not have
intended someone to escape liability on the basis of lack of
intent- ‘I am clearly driven to reject any construction of
statutory language that would require the Prosecution to
prove an intention on the part of each conspirator, that
the criminal offence will necessarily be committed, if the
course of conduct should in fact be committed’.
-No need for D to intend that offence actually be
committed – didn’t matter it was never going to work.
-Note: case critiqued- unlikely to be applied in future because
clearly wrong Bridge appeared to be stretching law to
uphold conviction.
R v McPhillips, Court of Appeal: charged with conspiracy to
murder (bombing a hotel)- pleaded NG- said he was going to
help plant bomb, but phone hotel after with warning bomb had
been planted.
-Trial Judge: said defence could be ignored because of R v
Anderson- no need for intention for offence to be committed-
guilty.
-Court of Appeal: intention to agree is at the heart of the
agreement – need to intend for offence to be committed-
if D did not intend for the murder to be carried out, he is
NG.
-Lowry, LJ: ‘the offence of statutory conspiracy assumes the
existence of an intention of the parties to carry out the
agreement – on the facts here, the result (murder) would not
have been in accordance with the intention of D- not guilty of
conspiracy to murder… the guilty act is the agreement that
the crime will be committed, the guilty mind is the intention
that the crime will be committed’.
R v Edwards / R v Ashford – Court of Appeal: D agreed to
supply drugs- did not intend to carry out agreement.
