Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

and con

Trade disputes now form an exception to the general Trade disputes law of conspiracy in one point. If, in connection with spiracy. such dispute, two or more combine to do something which if done by one person is not punishable as a crime, they will not, on account of their number, be indictable for the conspiracy at common law (0).

sale of grain

&c.

It may be mentioned that assaults with intent to Obstructing obstruct the sale of grain, or its free passage, or with force hindering any seaman, keelman, or caster from working at his lawful occupation, or beating or using violence with such intent, is punishable, on summary conviction, by imprisonment not exceeding three months (p).

(0) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 86, s. 3.

(p) 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, ss. 39, 40.

CHAPTER VII.

CONSPIRACY.

Definition of CONSPIRACY is a combination of two or more persons to conspiracy. do an unlawful act, whether that act be the final object of the combination, or only a means to the final end, and whether that act be a crime, or an act hurtful to the public, a class of persons, or an individual.

The agreement

or combination

offence.

The term conspiracy is divisible into three heads; first, where the end to be attained is in itself a crime; second, where the object is lawful, though the means to be resorted to are unlawful; third, where the object is to do an injury to a third party, or a class; though, if the wrong were inflicted by a single individual, it would be a wrong and not a crime (q).

The gist of the offence is the combination (r). Of the gist of the this offence a single person cannot be convicted, unless, indeed, he is indicted with others, who may, however, be dead or unknown to the jurors (s). And, on the same ground, man and wife cannot by themselves be convicted, for they are one person. Many acts innocent if done by one person, become criminal if they are the result of agreement by two or more persons. Thus A. and B. each commit adultery under the same circumstances, the most aggravated and cruel. B.'s conduct differs from A.'s only in the fact that he gets C. to lend

(q) R. v. Parnell, 14 Cox, 508.

(r) "The law of conspiracy is the most complete illustration of the fiction consisting in treating as a crime not the very acts which are intended to be punished, but certain ways of doing them."-Fitz. St. 62.

(8) I Hawk. c. 72, s. 8.

him a carriage for the purpose of elopement. A. is not, B. is, within the grasp of the criminal law (t). We have just remarked that the gist of the offence is the agreement. A mere intention will not suffice to constitute the crime (u). But if the agreement (the conspiracy itself) can be proved, there is no need to prove that anything has been done in pursuance of it. Of course, the existence of the unlawful agreement is generally evidenced by some overt acts, but these are evidence merely, and not material if the agreement can be proved otherwise (v).

nature of the

The definition shews a conspiracy to be an agree- Indefinite ment to do an unlawful act. It is the indefinite mean- crime. ing of this word "unlawful" that gives to the crime of conspiracy its wide extent. The widest discretion is intrusted to the judges, in whose power it seems to be thus to declare criminal combinations to do almost anything which they regard as morally wrong, politically or socially dangerous, or otherwise objectionable (w). Three classes of conspiracy may be distinguished (x) :

[ocr errors]

classified

1. When the end to be accomplished would be a Conspiracies crime in each of the conspiring parties; in other words, according to a conspiracy to commit a crime. The case of murder their objects. is specially provided for by statute; the person con

(t) "It is not apparent, at first sight, why conspiracy, which is one out of many possible aggravations of an act, should have been selected as the one by which its criminal character should be determined. . . . The probable explanation is, that in early times the most prominent conspiracies were usually attended with great violence, and that, in defining the crime, words were used which included offences of much less importance than those which were originally contemplated.”—Fitz. St. 62. (u) Mulcahy v. R., L. R. 3 H. L. Ap. Ca. 306. (v) R. v. Gill, 2 B. & Ald. 204.

(w) "It is not altogether inconvenient to have a branch of the law which enables the Courts, by a sort of ostracism, to punish people who make themselves dangerous or obnoxious to society at large, and the necessity for quoting precedents-the publicity of the proceedings-and the general integrity of the judges, are probably sufficient safeguards against its abuse, but it would be idle to deny that the power is dangerous, and ought to be watched with jealousy."-Fitz. St. 149. (x) See Final Report of Roy. Com. on Labour Laws.

spiring being liable to penal servitude to the extent of ten years (y). And by the same statute one who solicits, encourages, persuades, or endeavours to persuade, or proposes to any person to murder any other person, is liable to the same punishment (2). Such an offence is completed by the publication of an article in a newspaper, although not specifically addressed to any one person (a).

2. When the ultimate purpose of the conspiracy is lawful, but the means to be resorted to are criminal, or at the least, illegal; in other words, to effect a legal purpose with a corrupt intent or by improper means— for example, to support a cause believed to be just by perjured evidence; to break into another's house, in order to obtain one's own property.

We have already noticed the case of trade conspiracies, and referred to an exception to the common law doctrine in such matters (b).

3. Where, with a malicious design to do an injury the purpose is to effect a wrong, though not such a wrong as when perpetrated by a single individual, would amount to an offence against the criminal law. We may distinguish the following cases:—

(a.) Falsely to charge another with a crime-whether from malicious and vindictive motives, or to extort money from him. But, of course, two or more persons may agree to prosecute a person against whom there are reasonable grounds of suspicion.

(y) 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 4.

(2) Ibid. s. 4.

(a) R. v. Most, 7 Q. B. D. 244; 50 L. J. (M.C.) 113; 44 L. T. N. S.

423; 29 W. R. 759.

(b) v. pp. 126, 128.

(b.) To do an act with intent to pervert the course of justice, for this is an injury to the public at largefor example, when two or more agree together that one of them shall be robbed by the others, in order that they may obtain the statutory reward for conviction (c).

(c.) Generally-Wrongfully to injure or prejudice others, whether an individual, a body of men, or the public, in any other manner. The varieties of this offence are innumerable, but two or three examples. will suffice: To injure a man in his trade; to raise the price of the public funds by false rumours; to violate morality and public decency by inducing a woman to become a common prostitute (d). But it is said that not every combination to effect a tort is criminal; that wherever a combination to commit a civil injury has been held criminal, the injury has been malicious (using the term in the non-technical sense)-for example, a combination to pull down a fence would not be criminal, if the only object of the act were to try a question as to the right of way (e).

Conspiracy is a misdemeanor, punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both; in the case of conspiracy to murder by penal servitude to the extent of ten years (ƒ). This crime falls under the provision of the Vexatious Indictments Act (g).

felony.

If the purpose of the conspiracy is a felonious one Merger of conand actually carried out, the conspiracy is merged in spicy in the the felony; so that after a conviction for the felony the defendant cannot be tried for the conspiracy. But if the defendant is indicted for the conspiracy, he is not

[blocks in formation]
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »