This blog was co-authored by Hojol Uddin and Elisha Kaur.

A statutory criminal conspiracy requires proof that a defendant made an agreement with one or more individuals to carry out a criminal act. In order to determine if the Defendant has been part of a “Conspiracy”, the Court will seek guidance under Section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 which states the following:

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct will 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 which 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.

(2) Where liability for any offence may be incurred without knowledge on the part of the person committing it of any particular fact or circumstance necessary for the commission of the offence, a person shall nevertheless not be guilty of conspiracy to commit that offence by virtue of subsection (1) above unless he and at least one other party to the agreement intend or know that the fact or circumstance shall or will exist at the time when the conduct constituting the offence is to take place.

What does this mean?

The offence of conspiracy under s.1 Criminal Law Act 1977 requires proof that the defendant agreed with another or others (whether identified or not) that a course of conduct would be pursued which, if carried out in accordance with their intentions, would necessarily involve the commission of any offence by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or would do so but for the fact that it was an impossible attempt.

For conspiracy to be proven, it requires proof of intention to be a party to an agreement to do an unlawful act and that the defendant and one other party knew or intended that the circumstance element(s) of the intended offence would exist at the time of the offence (even if the substantive offence can be committed without proof of knowledge).

1. The offence is complete upon agreement; nothing need be done in pursuit of the agreement. The conspiracy continues for as long as there are two or more parties to it intending to carry it out.
2. It is not necessary for each member of the conspiracy to know the other members. If it is alleged that the parties to the conspiracy is a “chain” conspiracy, each alleged conspirator must each be shown to be party to a common design, and they must be aware that there is a larger scheme to which they are attaching themselves.

How will this affect me at Trial?

At trial, the Judge would likely direct the jury with the following steps:

1. A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an intended crime.
2. An agreement of that kind is itself a crime, separate from the intended crime.
3. For example, the prosecution say that the intended crime was to supply cocaine, a Class A drug, and that the defendants were part of an agreement to commit it.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution must make the jury sure that:

a. there was a conspiracy or agreement to commit the offence of supplying cocaine;

b. each defendant joined in that conspiracy; and

c. when each defendant joined in, they each intended that the fraudulent evasion on the importation of cocaine should be committed by themselves and/or one or more of the other conspirators.

For further details on Conspiracy offences, please visit our page which will provide you with a greater insight on the criminal element.