R v Anderson

Facts

Anderson agreed with others to help effect the escape of a prisoner from a high security prison. His part was to supply diamond cutting wire for use in the escape. He said that he had no intention of seeing the plan through and intended only to take the money offered to him.

History

He was convicted of conspiracy to effect the escape of the prisoner. His appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which certified a point of law of public importance, and he appealed to the House of Lords.

Issue

Whether a person is guilty of statutory conspiracy under section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 only if he intended that the agreed offence be committed, or whether it is enough that he agreed to play a part and intended to do so, even though he did not intend or expect the offence to be carried out.

Held

Appeal dismissed and the conviction upheld. The defendant had agreed to a course of conduct which would necessarily involve an offence and had intended to play a part in it.

Ratio

• The mental element of statutory conspiracy is satisfied if the defendant agreed to a course of conduct which would necessarily amount to or involve an offence if carried out in accordance with the intentions of the parties, and intended to play some part in the agreed course of conduct in furtherance of its criminal purpose. It is not necessary that he intended the offence in fact to be committed.

The judgments

Key reasoning

• Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 makes the agreement the gist of the offence and speaks of what is necessarily involved if the agreement is carried out in accordance with the intentions of the parties.
• The intention required is not that the offence will in fact be committed but that the defendant will play a part in carrying out the plan, so a person who agrees and means to take part cannot escape because he privately doubts that the plan will succeed.
• The defendant who agrees to supply the means for the offence has made himself party to a criminal plan, which is the mischief at which the offence of conspiracy is directed.

Where it fits in the module

In the Inchoate Liability topic the case is central to the analysis of the mental element of conspiracy under the 1977 Act, and in particular to whether the offence requires an intent to commit the substantive offence. The debate concerns the proper balance between guarding against criminal plans and the risk of convicting those who do not intend any harm, such as undercover officers and those who plan to defraud conspirators. Students should compare the later approach in Saik and the Law Commission proposals on conspiracy.

Criticisms

• The test punishes a person who does not intend the offence to be committed, which weakens the link between the offence and real danger and extends liability to those who intend to cheat other conspirators.
• The formula of playing some part is vague and does not state whether intention to play a part includes an intention that the substantive offence be committed by the others.
• The decision has been criticised for confusing the mental element of conspiracy with the conduct element, which led to later attempts by the House of Lords to restate the position.