Section I. Conspiracy

DEFINITION

In English law conspiracy first began as an agreement of persons who combined to carry on legal proceedings in a vexatious or improper way. It was for a long time closely allied to attempts and was indeed often regarded as one form of attempt to commit a wrong. However, in modern times conspiracy has become a separate crime and is defined as the agreement of two or more persons to effect any unlawful purpose, whether as their ultimate aim or only as a means to it. This definition presents four points for notice: (a) the actus reus, (b) the persons agreeing, (c) the purpose agreed upon, (d) the metis tea.

Actus reus. Agreement

It must not be supposed that conspiracy is a purely mental crime, consisting in the concurrence of the intentions of the parties. Here as everywhere in our law, bare intention is no crime. ‘Agreement’, as Lord Chelmsford puts it clearly, ‘is an act in advancement of the intention which each person has conceived in his mind.’ It is not mere intention, but the announcement and acceptance of intentions. A distinction is to be drawn between the conspiracy and the overt acts which may be given as evidence of the conspiracy. Bodily movement, by word or gesture, is indispensable to effect it. In order of time, this precedes the act agreed upon. But the fact of the parties having come to such an arrangement suffices to constitute a conspiracy. Hence it is not necessary to show that they went on to commit some overt act towards carrying it out, though this (and also some consequent damage) would be necessary in an action of tort for conspiracy. It follows that a person may be convicted of a conspiracy as soon as it has been formed, and before any overt act to carry out the agreed purpose has been committed.