The defendant appealed against his conviction for conspiracy to defraud. His co-defendant and alleged co-conspirator had been acquitted.
Held: The appeal against conviction failed. The defence knew that they were going to have to deal with the prosecution’s case that the appellant’s relationship to Murphy regarding the Murphy-related transactions was one of mutual dishonesty. It was throughout accepted by the defence that if the appellant was dishonestly involved in one or more of the Murphy transactions, he was guilty of conspiracy. That was the reason for the prosecution’s original decision to proceed on a single conspiracy count. The appellant’s case was that he himself acted honestly but he was duped by Murphy. The judge put that case to the jury and they disbelieved it.
However leave was given to appeal against the sentence imposed.
Toulson LJ summarised central legal principles in this context, as follows: ‘The authorities establish the following propositions: 1. A conspiracy requires that the parties to it have a common unlawful purpose or design.
2. A common design means a shared design. It is not the same as similar but separate designs.
3. In criminal law (as in civil law) there may be an umbrella agreement pursuant to which the parties enter into further agreements which may include parties who are not parties to the umbrella agreement. So, A and B may enter into an umbrella agreement pursuant to which they enter into a further agreement between A, B and C, and a further agreement between A, B and D, and so on. In that example, C and D will not be conspirators with each other.’
Judges:
Toulson LJ, Langstaff J, Boney QC
Citations:
[2012] EWCA Crim 2824
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rex v Meyrick and Ribuffi CCA 1929
The first count of the indictment alleged that the former police sergeant Goddard and the: ‘two appellants on divers days between the 1st October 1924 and the 24th November 1928 in the County of London, conspired together, and with one Anna Gadda, . .
Cited – Regina v Griffiths and Others CCA 1965
A supplier of lime and his employee were accused of conspiring with seven farmers to defraud the Ministry by submitting excessive subsidy claims. They were also charged with fraudulently obtaining money from the Ministry. There was no evidence that . .
Cited – Regina v Greenfield CACD 1973
Where a general conspiracy is charged in a single count, it is not bad for duplicity only because the evidence offered to prove it includes proof of the subsidiary conspiracies entered into in carrying out the general conspiracy. Duplicity is a . .
Cited – Regina v Barnard CACD 1980
The defendant appealed against his conviction for conspiracy to steal. He said that the judge had wrongly allowed evidence to go to the jury of a conspiracy to rob of which he was not part.
A jeweller had been robbed by three men armed with an . .
Cited – Mintern v Regina CACD 21-Jan-2004
. .
Cited – Ahmed Ali and Others, Regina v CACD 19-May-2011
Defendants sought leave to appeal against convictions for conspiracy to murder on allegations of intended terrorism. In essence they complained of having been tried twice on substantially the same facts. The court accepted that a defendant who was . .
Cited by:
Cited – Serious Fraud Office v Papachristos and Another CACD 19-Sep-2014
The applicants challenged their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to corrupt. They owned a company manufacturing fuel additives. Technology developments meant that they came under increasing pressure on sales. They were said to have entered . .
Cited – Bhatti and Others v Regina CACD 30-Jul-2015
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to facilitate breaches of immigration law, saying that they had been based on evidence obtained by the police from credit reference agencies in breach of their rights under the 1984 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.467717
