Kembaraxtra-Case Law- Conspiracy

R v Ashton (1992) CA

Key Concept

The common law rule requiring identical verdicts for co-conspirators has been abolished.

Case Summary

• Charges: D and W charged with conspiracy to murder.
• Trial Judge's Direction: Instructed the jury to return the same verdict for both defendants.
• Verdict: Both D and W were convicted.
• D's Appeal: D appealed, arguing there was evidence he was not guilty and the judge prevented the jury from considering an alternative verdict for him.

Ruling

• Legal Basis: Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 revoked the common law rule demanding identical verdicts for all parties to a conspiracy.
• Principle: When there is a significant difference in the evidence presented against two alleged conspirators, it is incorrect to instruct the jury to deliver identical verdicts for each.
• Application: In this case, there were crucial differences in the evidence against D and W, with D's defense being stronger.
• Outcome: D's conviction was quashed.

Importance

This case clarifies that individual culpability and evidence must be considered separately for each defendant in a conspiracy charge, even if it leads to seemingly "odd" outcomes (one convicted, the other acquitted).