#conspiracy #crime #inchoate #law

[ case ]
FACTS: This case involved a conspiracy to effect an escape from prison. The defendant, who was about to be released from prison agreed to supply a fellow prisoner with equipment to cut through the cell bars. He did not succeed in doing so as shortly after being released from prison he was injured in a car crash. Anderson admitted that he intended to supply the cutting equipment, but argued in his defence that he never intended the plan to be carried out and that he did not believe that it could succeed.
HELD: The House of Lords said that this was irrelevant, and they confirmed the conviction.
Lord Bridge said that Parliament could not have intended such a person to escape liability on the basis of lack of intent:

'I am clearly driven to reject any construction of the statutory language which would require the prosecution to prove an intention on the part of each conspirator that the criminal offence which will necessarily be committed by one or more of the conspirators if the agreed course of conduct is fully carried out should in fact be committed.'

However, the Court of Appeal has appeared to overlook Lord Bridge's dicta on several occasions, preferring to follow the wording from the statute. Anderson is not likely to be applied by in the future, because it is clearly wrong.

R v Anderson [1986] AC 27