Conspiracy to Defraud in UK Law

At first blush on the basis of the material that has been provided there is no evidence to show that Basile became a party to any fraudulent conspiracy to defraud the Republic. Equally there is in my view (save in respect of the over payment) no basis for suggesting that he provided dishonest assistance. They made arrangements for him to be paid via the Zamtrop account.

In my view the evidence of dishonesty is the receipt of a large amount of money with no explanation as to why he received it and its retention. On that material I am prepared to infer that Basile received the excess dishonestly. Whether he remitted it to back to FJT or XFC or kept it himself I do not know. I do not believe for one minute however that he received it for the purposes of spending on genuine ZSIS purposes (rejecting IM's submissions in that respect).

What the prosecution had to prove was a conspiracy to defraud which is an agreement dishonestly to do something which will or may cause loss or prejudice to another. This is the all important ingredient which must be stressed by the Judge in his directions to the jury and must not be minimised in any way. The dishonesty to be proved must be in the minds and intent-ions of the defendants. It is to their states of mind that the jury must direct their attention.

But if the statement and particulars of offence can be seen fairly to relate to and to be intended to charge a known and subsisting criminal offence but plead it in terms which are inaccurate, incomplete or otherwise imperfect, then the question whether a conviction on that indictment can properly be affirmed under the proviso must depend on whether, in all the circumstances, it can be said with confidence that the particular error in the pleading cannot in any way have prejudiced or embarrassed the defendant.

The particulars of offence in this indictment left no one in doubt that the substance of the crime alleged was a conspiracy to obtain money by deception. The judge in summing up gave all appropriate directions in relation to that offence. The misdescription of the offence in the statement of offence as a common law conspiracy to defraud had in the circumstances not the slightest practical significance.

In many ways it must be preferable that the conspiracy to defraud should be regarded as the greater container, as it were, and able to mop up conspiracy to steal if and when that is convenient having regard to the nature of the case.

In these four cases the court did not find that the convictions were safe: it considered that no miscarriage of justice had actually occurred and applied the proviso. Our sole obligation is to consider whether a conviction is unsafe.