LLB180 Study Guide - Final Guide: Crimes Act 1900, Precrime, Control Order
Week 6 – Conspiracy, Consorting and Association Scaffold
Conspiracy
• Agreement between two or more individuals to commit an offence
• The essence of the offence is agreement
• Extends liability in time by pushing the threshold of criminal liability backwards in
time from the planned offence → intention justifies criminalization of the
agreement, whether or not the crime is carried out
• Completed when the agreement comes into existence
• Note: oerlap ith JCE – conspiracy makes the agreement itself a criminal offence –
no implementation of plan required
What must be proven?
• Existence of an agreement to commit an offence
- At common law (i.e. NSW) no overt acts required as an element of the crime
though a ats a help the Cro to proe the agreeet: e.g. OBrie, CB
1185)
• Intention to agree with one or more others to commit an offence (or unlawful act) as
a group
- Intention (or knowledge where appropriate) for each physical element of the
offence that is the subject of the agreement (not recklessness, negligence): LK
and RK (2010), CB 1184
- Cannot be reckless or negligent
Proving agreement
• Must prove the fact of the agreement – establish not only intent to perform the act,
but the intent to agree with one or more others to perform as a group
• An intention to enter into an agreement in the future will not suffice, nor will the
fact that the defendant knew about the plan.
• In the absence of clear actions, the existence of the agreement is often established
of conversations, possibly documents, actions in pursuance of the agreement and
testimony of witnesses or co-conspirators.
• Doest hae to e agreeet to the preise aer i hih the at ill e
performed (Douglas)
• Remains regardless of who enters or leaves as long as there is minimum of 2 people
acting in the agreement at any one time (Masters)
• No overt act required (Rogerson)
Ipossile Cospriaies
• A ipossile ospira is oe here, for eaple, the sustae the parties
agreed to import is not the prohibited substance they thought it was or the method
they chose is incapable of producing the crime
• In Onuorah, the court held that as long as the parties have agreed to commit a crime
it is irrelevant that there is no possibility of successful commission – consistent with
the approach taken to the charge of attempt
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Week 6 conspiracy, consorting and association scaffold. What must be proven: existence of an agreement to commit an offence. At common law (i. e. nsw) no overt acts required as an element of the crime (cid:894)though a(cid:374)(cid:455) a(cid:272)ts (cid:373)a(cid:455) help the cro(cid:449)(cid:374) to pro(cid:448)e the agree(cid:373)e(cid:374)t: e. g. o(cid:859)brie(cid:374), cb. Intention to agree with one or more others to commit an offence (or unlawful act) as a group. Intention (or knowledge where appropriate) for each physical element of the offence that is the subject of the agreement (not recklessness, negligence): lk and rk (2010), cb 1184. In onuorah, the court held that as long as the parties have agreed to commit a crime it is irrelevant that there is no possibility of successful commission consistent with the approach taken to the charge of attempt. Consorting (cb 1211: crimes act 1900 (nsw), s 93x. As amended by the crimes amendment (consorting and organised crime) act.
