Judgement for the case R v Anderson
Table Of Contents
Defendant agreed to held X escape from prison for £20K. He took £2K but was then injured and took no further part in the scheme, neither intending that it should happen nor believing it possible.
-
Nevertheless he was convicted of conspiracy to effect the escape of a prisoner and HL rejected his appeal on the grounds that:
Defendant did not really need to fully intend a crime to be part of criminal conspiracy or believe it possible to be a party to it and
It is sufficient (and necessary) that he intended to play some part in the agreed course of conduct when the agreement was made and
That no longer wishing to be a part of the conspiracy was not an excuse to having been a party to it.
HL said the reason for requirement of intention to carry out the criminal conduct was to prevent undercover police/secret service operatives from being convicted.
NB: Point (2) has been overruled in Siracusa and point (1) has been overruled by and point (1) has been overruled by Yip Chiu-Cheung
RELATED CASES
For Further Study on R v Anderson
Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
In depth notes with lecturer and textbook comments included as well as ...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Criminal Law | Complicity Short Notes (13 pages) |
| Criminal law | Complicity Notes (23 pages) |
Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.