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 iron bar. They tied him up and made off with his stock. In due course the three robbers either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of the robbery. A count against them of conspiracy to rob was ordered to remain on the file. There was evidence that the appellant had previously reconnoitred the premises with two of the robbers, as he admitted when he was interviewed by the police. His explanation was that he was a professional burglar specialising in jewellers’ shops, but that his method involved gaining entry through the premises above the shop. He said that he abandoned any idea of stealing from the shop after surveying the way in which the jeweller conducted his business, and that at no time had he ever discussed robbing the jeweller in his shop.
Held: A conspiracy to commit theft could only be committed if the course of conduct to be pursued would necessarily involve the commission of the theft in accordance with the intention of the conspirators. Since a conspiracy to steal was not a lesser form of a conspiracy to rob but a different agreement, the evidence of the conspiracy to rob offered here, had no relevance to a conspiracy to commit theft. The appellant’s case had been undermined by the trial judge allowing the evidence of the robbery to go before a jury and thus enable them to infer that the scheme had not been abandoned, whereas he should have directed them to ignore that evidence, the jury had been misdirected and the appeal would be allowed and the conviction quashed.
Lawton LJ said: ‘It also follows that the evidence of the overt acts pursuant to the conspiracy to rob had no relevance to the conspiracy to steal, because they showed an intention by those who carried out the agreement to rob to do something other than follow the intentions of those who had started by agreeing to steal.’

Judges:

Lawton LJ

Citations:

[1980] 70 Cr App R 28

Statutes:

Criminal Law Act 1967 6(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMehta 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.467723