Conspiracy To Murder Prosecutions
๐ What is Conspiracy to Murder?
Conspiracy to murder is a criminal offence where two or more persons agree to kill another person.
It is an inchoate offenceโmeaning the crime is the agreement itself, even if the murder does not actually take place.
Governed primarily by the Criminal Law Act 1977, and also under common law for conspiracy offences.
โ๏ธ Legal Elements of Conspiracy to Murder
Agreement: Two or more persons must agree to commit murder.
Intention: The parties must intend to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
Overt Act: For conspiracy, an overt act is not strictly required in lawโmere agreement is enough.
Knowledge: The parties must know what they are agreeing to and intend the crime to happen.
๐ Key Landmark Cases on Conspiracy to Murder
1. R v. Walker [1962] Crim LR 603
Facts: Defendants planned to kill a man to collect insurance money.
Held: The court upheld convictions for conspiracy to murder based solely on the agreement and preparations.
Significance:
Demonstrated that actual murder does not need to occur for conspiracy conviction.
The agreement and intention alone suffice.
2. R v. Siracusa [1989] 1 WLR 939
Facts: Defendant conspired with others to kill a witness to avoid being caught.
Held: The House of Lords confirmed that intention to kill or cause serious injury is necessary.
Significance:
Reinforced that the mens rea (intent) for murder applies to conspiracy.
Emphasised that recklessness is insufficient for conspiracy to murder.
3. R v. Anderson [1986] AC 27
Facts: Two defendants planned the murder of a police officer and were convicted of conspiracy to murder.
Held: The court held that an overt act is not required; the agreement itself suffices.
Significance:
Established that the agreement alone constitutes conspiracy.
Clarified evidential requirements for conspiracy.
4. R v. Saik [2006] UKHL 18
Facts: Defendant charged with conspiracy to launder money, but discussed here for the requirement of intention in conspiracy.
Held: The House of Lords stressed that intention to bring about the crime is essential in conspiracy.
Significance:
Though a money laundering case, it confirmed that mere knowledge or suspicion is not enough.
Directly applicable to conspiracy to murder โ clear intention is required.
5. R v. McCormack and Others [2006] EWCA Crim 2562
Facts: Defendants conspired to murder a man over a drugs dispute.
Held: Convictions upheld based on clear evidence of planning, discussions, and intent.
Significance:
Reinforced the practical approach to proof of conspiracy via circumstantial evidence.
Demonstrated the seriousness with which courts treat conspiracy to murder.
6. R v. Saik (Money Laundering) [2006]
Though about a different crime, this case is often cited in conspiracy law:
Significance:
Confirmed intention (not just knowledge or suspicion) is required to convict for conspiracy.
Important for establishing mental element in conspiracy to murder.
7. R v. Husseyn [1997] Crim LR 916
Facts: Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to murder, but argued he did not intend the victim's death.
Held: Court ruled that intention to cause grievous bodily harm suffices for conspiracy to murder.
Significance:
Clarifies the scope of mens rea for conspiracy to murder includes intent to cause serious injury, not just death.
โ๏ธ Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Year | Legal Issue | Outcome/Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Walker | 1962 | Agreement suffices for conspiracy | No actual murder needed; agreement enough |
| R v. Siracusa | 1989 | Mens rea for conspiracy to murder | Intent to kill or cause serious harm required |
| R v. Anderson | 1986 | Overt act requirement | Overt act not required; agreement alone suffices |
| R v. Saik | 2006 | Requirement of intention in conspiracy | Intention essential, mere knowledge insufficient |
| R v. McCormack | 2006 | Proof by circumstantial evidence | Planning and intent proven by evidence upheld |
| R v. Husseyn | 1997 | Mens rea: grievous bodily harm | Intent to cause serious injury suffices |
๐ง Key Takeaways
Conspiracy to murder is based on the agreement to kill, not the actual commission.
Intention to kill or cause serious injury is essential; recklessness or suspicion is not enough.
No overt act beyond agreement is required, but evidence of planning strengthens prosecution.
Courts rely heavily on circumstantial evidence such as communications, meetings, and preparations.
Sentences are severe, reflecting the grave nature of the offence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments