A more recent version of these Inchoate Offences notes – written by Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law students – is available here.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Criminal Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Crim revision, Inchoate offences
?????Conspiracy & attempt are not mutually exclusive.
?????Statutory---Crim Law Act 1977, s1(1) AR---agreement (between 2 or more people) to a course of conduct that will necessarily amount to/involve an offence . . . [see statute book]
?????What is 'agreement' o Need a meeting of minds; More than mere discussion/negotiations (R v Walker) [[way to remember: beyond point of walking away---Walker]]. o No need to agree all details (DPP v Nock) [[way to remember: 'can be nocked down']]. o No need to take steps to carry out the agreement (DPP v Doot) [[way to remember: don't have to 'Do-It'/'Doot']].
?????Can't conspire, s2(2) CLA: spouses (including civil partners); children under 1; an intended victim of the crime. o Unless 3rd person involved, (R v Chrastny)---spouses, 3rd person---all guilty of conspiracy. MR---intention to agree:
?????Issue 1---intention to agree that the offence actually be committed?
o NO?R v Anderson, MR = just require that D intends to play a part o Re: agreed with cell mate to help him escape from prison; said the escape plan was never going to work so never intended it to actually be committed. o Lord Bridge: no requirement of intention that offence actually be committed; only MR is intention to play some part in agreed course of conduct. o [[note: impossibility is not a defence in Crim Law Act, this was the point that should have come up in Anderson to prevent him getting off, was impossible to do the escape]]. o YES, MR = intention that offence actually be committed: o R v McPhillips (N Ireland CA), re member of an IRA cell, tasked with planting a bomb on roof; charged with conspiracy to murder; he had planned to phone in a warning. Lowry LJ: need intention that the offence be actually committed. o R v Edwards (CA): re supplying amphetamine. o R v Ashton (CA): re conspiracy to murder, D said didn't intend to carry out. CA---not builty. o Yip Chiu-Chung v R (PC, from HK): re conspiracy to traffic heroin, one of them as undercover agent.
?????Issue 2---intention to take part in the course of conduct/to play a part in carrying out the agreement o R v Anderson: yes, need intention to play some part in the agreed course of conduct. 1
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Criminal Law Notes.