Canadian Criminal Law/Conspiracy

Proof of the Offence

 * 1) identity of accused
 * 2) date and time of incident
 * 3) jurisdiction (incl. region and province)
 * 4) the words communicated in the conspiracy
 * 5) there was an agreement made between the parties
 * 6) the parties had an intention to agree to put a "common design into effect" and did in fact agree
 * 7) the parties did not change their minds or intention to put common design into effect

Principles
A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act.

There must be an "intention to agree, the completion of an agreement and a common design." The Crown needs only prove that there was "a meeting of the minds with regard to a common design to do something unlawful".

To prove conspiracy the facts must satisfy a three-part test from R. v. Carter, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 938 1982 CanLII 35:
 * 1) has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the conspiracy?
 * 2) has the Crown proven that the accused was probably a member of the conspiracy?
 * 3) considering all of the evidence, is the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of being a member of the conspiracy?

A conspiracy must include (1) an agreement and (2) the unlawful objective or "common design".

As well, unlawful objective does not need to come about. It is the planning that is the criminal act.

An conspiracy made over the telephone will occur within the jurisdiction of both calling parties.

It is not relevant whether "from an objective point of view, commission of the offence may be impossible."

Agreement
An agreement can be implied or tacit. It requires a meeting of the minds to create a common intention to commit an offence. The parties must have knowledge of a common goal and agreement to achieve it.

It is not enough that there be a common intention. Nor is passive acquiescence to a criminal plan sufficient, knowledge of the plan , or nor wilful blindness.

It is not a "formal agreement" and may be implicit.

There must be a "a common plan with a common objective".

Where there is a pre-existing conspiracy, the accused must have adopted it or consented to participate in achieving the goal.

A conditional agreement can still be an agreement.

The charge must identify the crime(s) planned. And it should generally identify the co-conspirators.

It is a valid defence to establish that the accused pretended to agree to the conspiracy.

Participation
A member of a conspiracy who refuses to execute the plan is still guilty.

Involvement in only part of a whole plan will still be found guilty.

An accused cannot be convicted for attempted conspiracy.

Evidence
Words of the co-conspirator are admissible against the accused. They are not hearsay and are rather the actus reus.

Further, the co-conspirators exception to hearsay makes statements admissible against the accused.

Statements by the co-conspirator that are not related to the conspiracy are not admissible against the accused.