Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


R v Anderson

[1986] AC 27

Case summary last updated at 11/01/2020 14:34 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case R v Anderson

D 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 (1) D 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 (2) it is sufficient (and necessary) that he intended to play some part in the agreed course of conduct when the agreement was made and (3) 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 

R v Anderson crops up in following areas of law