Comments on Cases
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837503900105 |
| Published date | 01 January 1975 |
| Date | 01 January 1975 |
| Subject Matter | House of Lords |
House of Lords
Comments
on
Cases
SCOPE OF
THE
CRIME OF
CONSPIRACY
D.P.P. v. Shannon
"THE
Lawof conspiracy", said Lord Morris in D.P.P. v. Shannon (1974,
3
WLR.
173), "has been fertile in producing many problems for
lawyers." It has recently been as fertile in producing controversy of a more
political nature. There are those concerned with the maintenance of law
and order, who see in the crime of conspiracy a means of plugging what
would otherwise begaps in the criminal law. There are, on the other hand,
those concerned with the liberty of the individual, who have claimed that
the law ofconspiracy isbeing used to obtain convictions when substantive
offences cannot be proved and when the subject-matter of the impugned
agreement isnot itself a breach of the criminal law. The recent pronounce-
ment of the House of Lords in D.P.P. v. Shannon will not appeal to the
latter group, since its effect is to eliminate from the law a limitation upon
the effectiveness of a charge of conspiracy, which the Court of Appeal had
(albeit with some reluctance) felt bound to accept, in the light of a 'rule'
or 'practice' established in the earlier authorities.
The relevant facts in D.P.P. v. Shannon gave rise to a simple issue.
The accused was charged with ten other men with a series of offences of
handling stolen goods and conspiracy. The count which was the subject of
the present appeal charged him and (only) one other man, named Tracey,
with conspiracy. The accused pleaded guilty and was convicted and
sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Tracey was, of course, tried sep-
arately. The jury disagreed and he was re-tried, after the indictment had
been slightly amended, for the convenience of the new jury. The Crown
offered no evidence on this charge and a verdict of not guilty was entered
in respect of it. Thereupon, Shannon appealed to the Court of Appeal, on
the ground that, following the alleged co-conspirator's acquittal, his convic-
tion on that charge must be quashed, notwithstanding the fact that he had
originally pleaded guilty to that charge. The Court of Appeal eventually
accepted this contention, but the House of Lords restored the conviction.
Before turning to the substantive law on the basis of which the
House of Lords allowed the appeal, it must be remarked that, whatever
had been the outcome on that issue, the result would have been the same,
since the House also held that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to
deal with the appeal. Section 2
(l)
of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
contains the only grounds on which the Court of Appeal may hear an
appealfrom a conviction. These are (a) that the verdict of the jury is unsafe
51
To continue reading
Request your trial