Criminal Conspiracy
Definition:
Criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal act or to achieve a lawful object by unlawful means. The crime is the agreement itself, even if the planned act is not executed.
In Canada, conspiracy is mainly governed by sections 465–465.2 of the Criminal Code.
In the UK, it is governed by the Criminal Law Act 1977, Criminal Attempts Act 1981, and common law principles.
1. Essential Elements of Criminal Conspiracy
To establish conspiracy, courts generally require:
Agreement: There must be an agreement between two or more persons.
It need not be formal or written; oral or implied agreements suffice.
Intent to Commit a Crime: Parties must intend to commit the substantive offence.
Overt Act (in some jurisdictions): In certain jurisdictions (e.g., UK), an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy may be required.
Knowledge of Illegality: Parties must be aware that the act is illegal.
2. Judicial Interpretation in Canada
Key Canadian Cases
1. R. v. O'Brien (1954, SCC)
Facts: Accused conspired to defraud the government by submitting false claims.
Decision: Supreme Court held that conspiracy requires an agreement and intention to commit a criminal act.
Principle:
Agreement alone is sufficient for conspiracy; the offence does not require actual completion of the planned crime.
2. R. v. S. (R.D.) (1997, SCC)
Facts: Accused plotted to commit assault, but plan was discovered before execution.
Decision: Conviction upheld.
Principle:
Conspiracy is complete once agreement is made, regardless of whether the act is carried out.
3. R. v. Blencoe (2000, SCC)
Facts: Conspiracy to commit fraud over multiple provinces.
Decision: Court examined whether mere association could constitute conspiracy.
Principle:
Active participation or clear agreement is required; mere knowledge of a plan is insufficient.
4. R. v. Yip (2005, BCCA)
Facts: Accused conspired to traffic drugs; argued that they withdrew before the act.
Decision: Court held that withdrawal can be a defence if effectively communicated to co-conspirators.
Principle:
Withdrawal is a defence only if steps are taken to prevent the offence.
Conspiracy liability continues until withdrawal is effective.
5. R. v. Morin (1991, SCC)
Facts: Accused agreed to commit a robbery but one conspirator abandoned the plan.
Decision: Court confirmed that conspiracy requires mutual agreement and intent, not that all conspirators actually participate in execution.
Principle:
Liability attaches at the agreement stage; execution is irrelevant.
3. Judicial Interpretation in the United Kingdom
Key UK Cases
1. R v. Walker & Young (1975, CA)
Facts: Two men planned to import narcotics.
Decision: Court upheld conviction for conspiracy to import drugs.
Principle:
Conspiracy requires proof of agreement and criminal intent, not completion of the offence.
2. R v. Saik (2006, UKHL)
Facts: Accused involved in money laundering conspiracy.
Decision: House of Lords emphasized that knowledge of illegality is essential.
Principle:
A person must know or intend the substantive offence to be liable for conspiracy.
Recklessness or ignorance of illegality may negate conspiracy.
3. R v. Anderson (1986, CA)
Facts: Defendants conspired to commit armed robbery.
Decision: Court highlighted the need for clear, proven agreement between parties.
Principle:
Courts distinguish between mere association and active agreement.
Evidence must show intention to collaborate in criminal activity.
4. R v. Siracusa (1980, CA)
Facts: Conspiracy to defraud government by falsifying records.
Decision: Conviction upheld; court stressed that agreement to commit crime suffices.
Principle:
Overt act not necessary in common law conspiracy; the agreement itself is punishable.
5. R v. Chrastny (2015, CA)
Facts: Conspiracy to commit fraud via corporate structure.
Decision: Court held that even complex, indirect schemes fall under conspiracy if parties actively agree and intend criminal outcomes.
Principle:
Courts interpret conspiracy broadly to cover collaborative schemes, not just simple acts.
4. Comparative Analysis: Canada vs UK
| Feature | Canada | UK |
|---|---|---|
| Governing Law | Criminal Code ss. 465–465.2 | Criminal Law Act 1977, common law |
| Actus Reus | Agreement to commit crime | Agreement to commit crime |
| Mens Rea | Intent to commit crime | Intent or knowledge of crime |
| Overt Act Requirement | Not always required | Not required in common law; some statutes require act |
| Withdrawal | Recognized if communicated | Recognized; can mitigate liability |
| Scope | Includes complex conspiracies, fraud, drug trafficking | Broad; includes financial and organized crime |
5. Key Principles from Case Law
Agreement is the core offence: No need for completion. (R. v. O’Brien; R v. Siracusa)
Intention or knowledge of illegality required: (R. v. Saik)
Active participation vs mere knowledge: Passive knowledge is insufficient. (R. v. Blencoe; R v. Anderson)
Withdrawal is a valid defence: If effectively communicated. (R. v. Yip)
Complex schemes covered: Courts include conspiracies involving fraud, drugs, or online crimes. (R. v. Chrastny)
6. Summary of Cases
Canada:
R. v. O’Brien (1954) – Agreement alone suffices
R. v. S. (R.D.) (1997) – Completion not required
R. v. Blencoe (2000) – Active participation needed
R. v. Yip (2005) – Withdrawal as defence
R. v. Morin (1991) – Agreement and intent essential
UK:
R v. Walker & Young (1975) – Narcotics conspiracy
R v. Saik (2006) – Knowledge and intent
R v. Anderson (1986) – Clear agreement required
R v. Siracusa (1980) – Agreement alone suffices
R v. Chrastny (2015) – Complex fraud conspiracies
RELATED Blog
comments