conspiracy

Question 1

definition case

Answer 1

HM Adv v Wilson, Latta and Rooney, unreported (1968)
“A criminal conspiracy arises when two or more persons agree to
render one another assistance in doing an act, whether as an end or as
a means to an end, which would be criminal if done by a single
individual”

Question 2

simple agreement

Answer 2

Maxwell and Others v HM Adv 1980 JC 40
Significance: In order for some agreement to amount to a criminal conspiracy, the agreement must be to commit an act or otherwise embark on a course of conduct which would amount to a crime if it were carried out by an individual working on their own. Nothing else is needed for criminal liability.

Question 3

non-explicit agreement

Answer 3

Coleman v HM Adv 1999 SCCR 87
Facts: Individuals charged with conspiring to assault a group of men amongst other things. They had also equipped themselves with weapons and had started on their way to the potential victims’ house. Before this, they met at the house of one of the girlfriends to discuss and agree that they would do this.
Legal issue: One of the appellants was not there when this discussion took place. He had been there, but he had been sent out on an errand, and when he got back the group was on their way. At this point, he was given a baton, and he went to catch up with them. The appellant on his way also verbally abused some people who refused to participate.
Held: Even though the appellant hadn’t explicitly agreed to carry out the offence, his actions show that he was also party to the offence, joining in in agreement.
Significance: No need for express agreement; can be inferred from actions. Just being present alone isn’t enough either.

Question 4

what happens where the act done in pursuance of the conspiracy is a crime in itself?

Answer 4

Sayers HM Adv 1981 SCCR 312
Facts: A group of accused who were alleged to have conspired to further the purpose of the ulster volunteer force. They had allegedly conspired to do this by criminal means, ie unlawfully acquiring firearms and explosives and soliciting firearms to be used in connection with acts of terrorism.
Legal issue: Each of these criminal means were either deleted from the indictment by the jury, or the accused was acquitted of them. In the absence of these criminal means, the alleged agreement that had been made was not actually a conspiracy to commit a crime. The criminal means were what made the criminal agreement criminal.
Held: Conviction was overturned.

BUT

HM Adv v Wilson, Latta and Rooney unreported (1968)
The question of whether he could be guilty of these freestanding crimes was held to be separate from the question of conspiracy. The jury could acquit of the conspiracy while convicting of the crimes, and vice versa.

Question 5

what happens where there is only one accused?

Answer 5

Howitt v HM Adv 2000 JC 284
Facts: 2 men charged with conspiring to set fire to a house, and murder its occupants. The men were tried separately, ie in separate trials.
Legal issue: One of the accused was not charged with conspiracy, and the other argued that his own conviction was incompetent because there was no proven allegation in relation to his co-conspirator.
Held: This wasn’t relevant.
Significance: The factual findings of each trial can stand alone.

Question 6

impossibility

Answer 6

Maxwell and Others v HM Adv 1980 JC 40
Facts: Alleged conspiracy to bribe members of a licence board to get them to approve a gaming licence. The decision was no longer in their hands, however, so if they had gone ahead, it couldn’t have been successful.
Significance: Impossibility didn’t mean the conspiracy charge was irrelevant, even though it was impossible that it could be successful.