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 alleged to have conspired with others to murder by the specific method of detonating bombs on transatlantic aircraft could properly be tried and convicted on a count that simply alleged conspiracy to murder, when some of the conspirators may have agreed to murder in ways other than placing explosive devices on aircraft.
Thomas LJ said: ‘it seems to us that, looking at the evidence in the case, it is clear that there was the possibility of two distinct agreements on the evidence advanced by the prosecution: an agreement by all to murder and an agreement by some (or all on the prosecution’s case) to murder not simply by detonating a device before an iconic object but by detonating IEDs on transatlantic aircraft. Although the object was to commit the same underlying offence of murder, they are distinct and different agreements as the latter involved an infinitely more serious and sophisticated agreement to do so by detonating IEDs on aircraft.’ and ‘what cannot be done is to put two different counts into the indictment to enable the jury to determine a factual issue where the difference in the facts does not make the offence in each count different. There can only be different counts where the there are different offences . . In the light of those authorities and the argument before us, [ . . ] it would be unlawful to charge the same offence in different counts in the indictment even though the factual basis differed. It is not permissible to put into an indictment an alternative factual basis which makes no difference to the offence committed whether or not it is for the purpose of enabling a jury to decide an issue of fact or for any other purpose. [ . . ]’
Judges:
Thomas LJ, MacDuff, Sweeney JJ
Citations:
[2011] EWCA Crim 1260, [2011] 3 All ER 1071, [2011] 2 Cr App Rep 22
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Mehta v Regina CACD 31-Dec-2012
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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.439871