New Zealand Law/Criminal/Conspiracy

Commentary

Definition

Conspiracy involves:

(i) an intention to agree; and

(ii) a common design to put the agreement into effect. (R v Gemmell)

There is no need to take any steps but there must be agreement that such steps will be taken.

Conspiracy is complete on the making of an agreement.

Three types of conspiracy

There are 3 types of conspiracy:

(a) simple;

(b) circle or wheel; and

(c) chain conspiracy.

Impossibility

Impossibility is available as a 'defence' to conspiracy.

Case Law

R v Gemmell

• Facts

Gemmell and principal discussed a robbery.

G refused to take part in an aggravated robbery.

But on the day of robbery, G reluctantly agreed to drive principal and others to post office.

• Held

1. There is difference in agreeing to commit one crime and aiding & abetting another.
2. Aiding & abetting aggravated robbery cannot transform an agreement to commit (simple) robbery into agreement to commit aggravated robbery.
3. Conspiracy requires:

(a) intention common to the conspirators; and

(b) a manifestation of that intention by mutual consultation or agreement

R v Sanders

• An agreement made outside NZ to commit a crime in NZ is actionable in NZ if any act in furtherance of the conspiracy is performed in NZ.

R v Richards

• Facts

Thompson regularly bought heroin from Richards.

Myers, Thompson's friend, asked Thompson to help him score some drugs.

Thomspon got the drugs for Myers from Richards.

Thompson was charged with conspiracy to supply and manufacture.

• Held

1. A conspiracy is committed when the agreement is complete.
2. The agreement must occur before the “object crime”. An agreement to supply and then later deliver, is sufficient.
3. There must be a causal link btwn the agreement and crime taking place. If a party will have no influence over intended conduct (eg. acquiescence to a course of conduct) – there is no conspiracy.
4. An exchange of promises is implied in some circumstances.
5. The defendant encouraged supply, and knew that manufacture was necessary, therefore he agreed to it.
6. There was no intention to actively assist in manufacture but support of whole operation means defendant is a conspirator to manufacture.
7. A person who organises or encourages at the outset can be a conspirator if, at the time of the agreement, he expressly or impliedly commits to be a supporter in principle of the project, available to assist in ways that may not yet be specified.
8. A drug user not only agrees that others should make and supply drugs but that he will continue to actively encourage and receive drugs.
9. For the Crown to establish conspiracy, it must prove 4 things:

(a) that the accused formed a common intention w/ at least one conspirator

(b) that intention was expressed by agreement

(c) the course of conduct, if carried out, would be a crime; and

(d) that the agreement included intentional promise to actively assist AND made commission more likely (e.g influential, indicated commitment)