Proving conspiracy

Criminal Law Review

Volumn 1996, Issue 6, 1996, Pages 386-392

  Smith, J C ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042871483     PISSN: 0011135X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. This proposition was unchanged through numerous editions - at least since the 35th (1962). In the latest (1996) edition it is modified to read: "The admissibility of acts, declarations or document by a co-conspirator in furtherance of a conspiracy requires proof or at least admissible evidence tending to suggest that there was a conspiracy to which that person was a party". (Author's italics).
2. Maguire and Epstein, 40 Harv.L.Rev. 392, 406-407, n.47, commenting on a jury direction in these terms, exclaim: "... how ridiculous this charge is! If the other evidence satisfies the jury that the conspiracy has been entered into, the co-conspirator's declarations can fulfil no useful purpose."
3. Vol. 3, p.166. Greaves was quoting almost verbatim from the summing up of Erle J. in Duffield (1851) 5 Cox C.C. 404, 434. Coleridge J. summed up to the same effect in Murphy, 8 C. & P. 297, 310.
4. Vol. 3, p.166. Greaves was quoting almost verbatim from the summing up of Erle J. in Duffield (1851) 5 Cox C.C. 404, 434. Coleridge J. summed up to the same effect in Murphy, 8 C. & P. 297, 310.
5. Glanville Williams, The Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd ed.), pp.680-683; Blackstone's Criminal Practice, paras. F16.49-F16.51; Cross, Evidence (7th ed.); Andrews and Hirst on Criminal Evidence (2nd ed.), p.628. A valuable examination of the rule, particularly as it operates in the United States and Canada, is to be found in Schiff, Evidence in the Litigation Process (4th ed.), pp.491-498.
6. Glanville Williams, The Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd ed.), pp.680-683; Blackstone's Criminal Practice, paras. F16.49-F16.51; Cross, Evidence (7th ed.); Andrews and Hirst on Criminal Evidence (2nd ed.), p.628. A valuable examination of the rule, particularly as it operates in the United States and Canada, is to be found in Schiff, Evidence in the Litigation Process (4th ed.), pp.491-498.
7. Glanville Williams, The Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd ed.), pp.680-683; Blackstone's Criminal Practice, paras. F16.49-F16.51; Cross, Evidence (7th ed.); Andrews and Hirst on Criminal Evidence (2nd ed.), p.628. A valuable examination of the rule, particularly as it operates in the United States and Canada, is to be found in Schiff, Evidence in the Litigation Process (4th ed.), pp.491-498.
8. Glanville Williams, The Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd ed.), pp.680-683; Blackstone's Criminal Practice, paras. F16.49-F16.51; Cross, Evidence (7th ed.); Andrews and Hirst on Criminal Evidence (2nd ed.), p.628. A valuable examination of the rule, particularly as it operates in the United States and Canada, is to be found in Schiff, Evidence in the Litigation Process (4th ed.), pp.491-498.
9. Glanville Williams, The Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd ed.), pp.680-683; Blackstone's Criminal Practice, paras. F16.49-F16.51; Cross, Evidence (7th ed.); Andrews and Hirst on Criminal Evidence (2nd ed.), p.628. A valuable examination of the rule, particularly as it operates in the United States and Canada, is to be found in Schiff, Evidence in the Litigation Process (4th ed.), pp.491-498.
10. Cross & Tapper, Evidence (8th ed.), p.56, a principle overlooked in Potamitis [1994] Crim.L.R. 434, and in Irish [1994] Crim.L.R. 922.
11. Cross & Tapper, Evidence (8th ed.), p.56, a principle overlooked in Potamitis [1994] Crim.L.R. 434, and in Irish [1994] Crim.L.R. 922.
12. Cross & Tapper, Evidence (8th ed.), p.56, a principle overlooked in Potamitis [1994] Crim.L.R. 434, and in Irish [1994] Crim.L.R. 922.
13. The principles discussed are the same whether A is charged alone or jointly with B but are better emphasised by considering the former case.
14. [1994] 2 All E.R. 924, P.C.; [1994] Crim.L.R. 824.
15. Blackstone's Criminal Practice (1994), para. F16.49.
16. (1947) 32 Cr.App.R. 102.
17. Phipson on Evidence (14th ed., 1990), para. 25-10. Distinguished editors with great practical experience who assert this include the late Judge Buzzard and Judge Richard May.
18. Christie [1914] A.C. 545, H.L., per Lord Moulton.
19. Peter Murphy, A Practical Approach to Evidence (5th ed.), pp.215-216.
20. (1844) 6 Q.B. 126; 115 E.R. 49, followed in Devonport, Pirano and White [1996] Crim.L.R. 255.
21. If we look only at the documents, they do not necessarily establish a fraud on the revenue at all. They were not inconsistent with the fact that 100lbs was the amount actually imported and that T was defrauding his principal by falsely claiming that he had seen and paid duty on the importation of 500lbs. Of course this is improbable because the principal presumably know how much had been imported.
22. Coleridge J. at p.140: "... we have, indeed, not heard Mr Cockburn; but I feel a very strong persuasion that he would not have convinced me that the day book was inadmissible." But it would not have been difficult to make mincemeat of the Crown's argument, as reported.
23. Cf. Kearley.
24. Evans [1981] Crim.L.R. 699. Edwards v. Brookes (Milk) Ltd [1963] 3 All E.R. 62, is inconsistent with this principle and Professor Cross himself questioned whether it could stand with Myers v. DPP [1965] A.C. 1009.
25. Evidence (2nd ed.), para. 20.26.
26. Andrews [1987] A.C. 281.
27. Schiff, op cit., p.492, n. 148.
28. The rule has been the subject of voluminous discussion in the United States but, as Schiff (op cit., p.494, n.156) remarks, "Other commentators [than McCormick and the drafters of the Model Code] have found little basis for trusting co-conspirators' statements."