What happened in the case of R v Aspinall?

Question

it is a criminal case

Answer 1

It is an old case which can be found at R v Aspinall [1876] 2 QBD 48 in which the parties conspired to commit a criminal offence and were found guilty of conspiracy despite having taken no further steps to further the offence.

In this case the court ruled: "The crime of conspiracy is completely committed the moment two or more have agreed that they will do, immediately or at some future time, certain things. It is not necessary, in order to complete the offence, that anything should be done beyond the agreement. The conspirators may repent and stop, or may have no opportunity, or may be prevented or failed. Nevertheless, the crime is complete; it was completed when they agreed."

Answer 2

2] The definition of ‘conspiracy’ is best contained in the Speech of Viscount Simon LC in Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co v Veitch. That definition is that ‘Conspiracy, when regarded as a crime, is the agreement of two or more persons to effect any unlawful purpose, whether as their ultimate aim, or only as a means to it, and the crime is complete if there is such agreement, even though nothing is done in pursuance of it.’

[3] I accept, of course, that the crime is complete once agreement has been reached and can be charged as such once agreement has been reached.

[4] Defence counsel submitted that because the conspiracy is complete as soon as agreement is reached, and because in lines 12 to 25 of p 1 of the indictment the only locations which are specified are outwith Scotland, then it must follow that no part of the conspiracy took place in Scotland and, therefore, the Scottish court has no jurisdiction.

[5] In my view, however, just because the crime has been completed when agreement has been reached and can be charged at that stage, it does not follow at all that the crime is necessarily spent.

[6] I refer first of all to the case of R v Doot. In that case Viscount Dilhorne at p 822, referred to the case of R v Aspinall where what was said was this: ‘In order to apply these rules to the present case it is necessary next to determine what are the essential facts to be alleged in order to support a charge of conspiracy. Now, first, the crime of conspiracy is completely committed, if it is committed at all, the moment two or more have agreed that they will do, at once or at some future time, certain things. It is not necessary in order to complete the offence that any one thing should be done beyond the agreement. The conspirators may repent and stop, or may have no opportunity, or may be prevented, or may fail. Nevertheless the crime is complete; it was completed when they agreed.’

[7] Having quoted that passage, Viscount Dilhorne went on to say this: ‘I see no reason to criticise this passage unless it be interpreted to mean that the crime, though completed by the agreement, ends when the agreement is made. When there is agreement between two or more to commit an unlawful act all the ingredients of the offence are there and in that sense the crime is complete. But a conspiracy does not end with the making of the agreement. It will continue so long as there are two or more parties to it intending to carry out the design.’

[8] He then quotes from a decision of Coleridge J in R v Murphy where what was said was: ‘It is not necessary that it should be proved that these defendants met to concoct this scheme, nor is it necessary that they should have originated it. If a conspiracy be already formed, and a person joins it afterwards, he is equally guilty. You have to say whether, from the acts that have been proved, you are satisfied that these defendants were acting in concert in this matter.’

[9] He then went on to say: ‘This statement of Coleridge J has not been questioned and I take it to be well established that it is a correct statement of law. If it is, it is not easy to reconcile it with the view expressed by the Court of Appeal, for the man who joins a conspiracy after it has been formed was not a party to the conspiracy when it was “completed”. The fact that a man who later joins a conspiracy may be convicted of it shows that although the offence is complete in one sense when the conspiracy is made, it is nevertheless a continuing offence.’