Kembaraxtra-Case Law-Conspiracy: Anderson (1986) HL

Key Case Details

• Parties: D (defendant)
• Offence: Conspiracy to enable a prisoner to escape.
• Facts:
• D agreed to supply diamond wire for a fee.
• Wire was intended to cut metal bars for a prison escape.
• D did not believe the escape plan would succeed.
• D intended to leave the country after supplying the wire.

Legal Holdings

1. Conspiracy to Commit an Offence: D was found guilty of conspiracy.
2. Intent to Carry Out Agreement (No Requirement): Conspiracy can be committed even if the conspirator does not intend for the agreed-upon criminal act to actually be carried out.
3. Intent to Play a Part (Requirement): An intention to play some part in the agreed course of criminal conduct must be established.

Lord Bridge's Statement

• "Neither the fact that he intended to play no further part in attempting to effect the escape, nor that he believed the escape to be impossible would... have afforded him any defence."

Key Takeaways

• Subjective Belief in Success Irrelevant: A conspirator's personal belief that the criminal plan will fail does not negate their guilt for conspiracy.
• Limited Involvement Sufficient: The intention to play even a minor or initial role in the criminal conduct is enough to establish the actus reus (and mens rea regarding participation) for conspiracy, even if no further involvement is planned.
• Focus on Agreement: The core of conspiracy lies in the agreement and the intent to participate in some aspect of the agreed-upon unlawful conduct, not necessarily in the intention for the full criminal outcome to materialize.