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 any of the farmers was aware of the arrangements being made between the principal defendant and any of the other farmers, but they were all charged with a single count of conspiracy.
Held: The convictions were quashed.
Conspiracy charges should be tried separately to substantive counts and the prosecution should not charge persons with conspiracy at all in the absence of evidence from which a jury could infer that the accuseds’ minds went beyond an intention to commit the substantive offences, to an agreement to do an unlawful act. The prosecution case was confusing and that evidence in any event could not have supported the conspiracy charge.
It is not necessary that a defendant in a conspiracy charge should know all the details of the scheme to which he attaches himself. However: ‘In law all must join in the one agreement, each with the others, in order to constitute one conspiracy. They may join in at various times, each attaching himself to that agreement; any of them may not know the full extent of the scheme to which he attaches himself. But what each must know is that there is coming into existence, or is in existence, a scheme which goes beyond the illegal act or acts which he agrees to do.’
Paull J gave an illustration: ‘I employ an accountant to make out my tax return. He and his clerk are both present when I am asked to sign the return. I notice an item in my expenses of andpound;100 and say: ‘I don’t remember incurring this expense’. The clerk says: ‘Well, actually I put it in. You didn’t incur it, but I didn’t think you would object to a few pounds being saved.’ The accountant indicates his agreement to this attitude. After some hesitation I agree to let it stand. On those bare facts I cannot be charged with 50 others in a conspiracy to defraud the Exchequer of andpound;100,000 on the basis that this accountant and his clerk have persuaded 500 other clients to make false returns, some being false in one way, some in another, or even all in the same way. I have not knowingly attached myself to a general agreement to defraud.’
Judges:
Paull J
Citations:
(1965) 49 Cr App R 279, [1966] 1 QB 589
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 . .
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: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.467721
