Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Inchoate Offences: Conspiracy and Attempt (Conspiracy - S1(1) Criminal Law…

- - - - Statute does not specify the stage at which agreement takes place - important to know from a policy perspective
        
        There is no need for the parties to have taken steps to carry out their agreement - DPP v Doot
        
        The parties need not have settled all the details of the offence - R v Nock - aka date and time
        
        The parties must have gone beyond the stage of negotiation - R v Walker - aka talking about who does what
      - Section 2(2) CLA 1977
        
        a) An accused cannot conspire with a person who is his spouse or civil partner at the time of the agreement
        
        b) An accused cannot conspire with a child under 10 years old
        
        c) An accused cannot conspired with an intended victim of the crime
  - - - What precisely has to be agreed? Two alternatives/schools of thought
        
        Intention to agree that the offence be committed - Privy Council and Court of Appeal - does not represent law as it stands even though many people think this is the better option
        
        R v McPhillips - defendant joined in conspiracy to plant a bomb - claimed that, unknown to his accomplices, he intended to give a warning - Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland per Lowry LJ held that he was not guilty of conspiracy to murder as this result would not have been in accordance with his intention
        
        R v Edwards - Judge directed jury that defendant could not be convicted of conspiracy to supply amphetamine unless he intended to carry out the agreement to do so, which was in question - Court of Appeal
        
        R v Ashton - defendant argued that though there was an ostensible agreement to kill someone, he did not intend to carry it out and was keeping everything under his control - court held he was not guilty of conspiracy without giving reasons - Court of Appeal
        
        Yip Chiu-Cheung v R - American undercover drug enforcement agent working with the Hong Kong authorities - they agreed not to prevent him from trafficking heroin to Australia as his aim was to identify members of a drug plan - mixed his flight and the plan was abandoned - appellant argued that therefore the agent could not be his co-conspirator - Privy Council per Lord Griffiths held that even though the agent was "acting courageously and with the best of motives' he did intend to commit the offence of drug trafficking and was therefore was therefore the appellant's co-conspirator - appellant found guilty as a result
        
        Intention to play a part in carrying out the agreement - represents law as it stands though thought unlikely it would be followed by a future Supreme Court
        
        R v Anderson - defendant who was about to be released from prison agreed to supply fellow prisoner with equipment to cut through cell bars - did not succeed as was injured in car crash shortly after release - admitted he intended to supply the equipment but argued that he never intended the plan to be carried out as he didn't believe it could succeed - House of Lords per Lord Bridge held that Parliament could not have intended such a person to escape liability on the basis of lack of intent
        
        R v Siracusa - widened Anderson to include organisation - per O'Connor LJ: We think it obvious that Lord Bridge cannot have been intending that the organiser of a crime who recruited others to carry it out would not himself be guilty of conspiracy unless it could be proved that he intended to play some active part himself"
      - Conditional intent is sufficient - aka when parties agree that they will commit a criminal offence only if certain circumstances occur - R v Jackson
- - - - An act which is more than merely prepatory to the commission of an offence - very difficult to define
        
        "An attempt begins when the merely prepatory acts come to an end and the defendant embarks on the crime proper or the actual commission of the offence" - per Lord Lane CJ - R v Gullefer
        
        Defendant jumped onto race track in order to disrupt race and have it declared void - held that he had not gone beyond mere preparation at this point
        
        R v Jones - defendant bought a shot gun, cut off the end, went to meet victim, climbed into his car and pointed gun at him saying "You are not going to like this" - safety catch was on but it was unclear whether his finger was on the trigger - held that it became more than merely prepatory at the moment he got in the car and pointed it at the victim with the intention of killing him
        
        Taylor LJ - held actus reus definition would be inapt if it were intended to mean 'the last act which lay in his power before the commission of the offence'
        
        R v Campbell - defendant arrested after loitering outside a post office, wearing sunglasses and carrying something heavy after police had been notified that a robbery was going to take place - discovered to have gun and demand note - argued on appeal that he had intended it, but had changed his mind - held that as he had not even gone inside the post office where the offence was to be committed, his acts up until that point were merely prepatory
        
        R v Tosti - defendants intended to burgle a barn - disturbed examining the padlock on the barn door, but ran off - their cars were parks in a nearby lay-bay, and they had hidden cutting equipment in a hedge - held to be more than merely prepatory
    - - Intention to bring about the consequences required for the full offence
        
        R v Whybrow - to be convicted to attempted murder, need to intend death, not just GBH
        
        R v O'Toole - if substantive offence has mens rea of intention or recklessness, proof of intention required for attempted offence
        
        If no direct intention, consider oblique intention - R v Walker & Hayles - court held that the jury may (but do not necessarily have to) infer intention where they are satisfied that the defendant foresaw the result as a virtual certainty
      - Intention to achieve only what is missing from the full offence - A-G's Ref (No 3 of 1991) - if MR of offence includes an element which does not relate to the AR, then MR for that offence is an intention to achieve what is missing from the AR, plus the MR for the full offence
        
        Defendants threw lighted petrol bomb at occupied car, beside pavement on which persons were standing - passed over the car and hit a wall adjacent - charged with attempted aggravated arson - MR is intention or recklessness to damaging property and intention or recklessness as to endangering life - AR is damaging property but no need but life to be endangered - defendant had state of mind for full offence and intended to do physical element which was missing
      - Conditional intention is sufficient - A-G's Ref (Nos 1 & 2 od 1979)
- - - - R v Shivpuri - defendant thought he was carrying a suitcase filled with illegal drugs - weren't drugs but convicted of attempting to be knowingly concerned in dealing with a prohibited drug contrary to s1(1) Criminal Attempts Act