Coughlan and Young were convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of conspiracy to cause explosions in the United Kingdom, the prosecution having limited the allegation to explosions in Birmingham and its neighbourhood. Charges had been brought in respect of the ‘sub-agreements’ or ‘sub-conspiracies’ to cause explosions in Manchester and Birmingham.
Lawton LJ said: ‘There is no difficulty in law about alleging a separate conspiracy to cause explosions in Manchester and another to cause explosions in Birmingham, even though some, or it may be all of the conspirators, may have been parties to a wider agreement to cause explosions throughout the United Kingdom, including Birmingham and Manchester. The wider agreement or conspiracy would not preclude the existence of sub-agreements or sub-conspiracies to cause explosions in particular places, and as a matter of law these sub-conspiracies or agreements could properly be charged as separate offences.’
There had been publicity following an unsuccessful plea of autrefois convict which tended to disclose an earlier conviction. Lawton LJ said: ‘It is our experience that juries in general understand the responsibility which rests upon them. They know that they have to be sure of guilt on the evidence before returning a verdict of guilty. The fault with juries nowadays lies not in convicting when they should acquit but in acquitting when they should convict. Juries are capable of disregarding that which is not properly before them. They are expected to disregard what one accused says about another in his absence. If they can do that, which is far from easy, they can disregard what has been said in a newspaper.’ and ‘There is no difficulty in law about alleging a separate conspiracy to cause explosions in Manchester and another to cause explosions in Birmingham, even though some, or it may be all of the conspirators, may have been parties to a wider agreement to cause explosions throughout the United Kingdom, including Birmingham and Manchester. The wider agreement or conspiracy would not preclude the existence of sub-agreements or sub-conspiracies to cause explosions in particular places, and as a matter of law these sub-conspiracies or agreements could properly be charged as separate offences. Acquittal or conviction on a charge of one such offence would be no bar to the trial of the same accused on another.’
Lawton LJ
[1976] 63 Cr App R 33
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Alibhai and Others CACD 30-Mar-2004
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute counterfeit Microsoft products. They said that inadequate disclosure had been provided by Microsoft. The principal witness was a participating informant . .
Cited – Regina v Abu Hamza CACD 28-Nov-2006
hamza_rCACD2006
The defendant had faced trial on terrorist charges. He claimed that delay and the very substantial adverse publicity had made his fair trial impossible, and that it was not an offence for a foreign national to solicit murders to be carried out . .
Cited – Regina v Stone CACD 14-Feb-2001
The defendant appealed against his conviction in 1998 of murder based on a confession said to have been made to a fellow prisoner on remand. A witness supporting that confession said after the trial that he had lied under police pressure. The appeal . .
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.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.237906 br>