Conspiracy to Commit Murder: How Does the Law Prove It?

A prosecutor proving conspiracy to commit murder needs to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an agreement existed and that the parties involved had the necessary intent of murder. 

Although it can vary depending on the case, there are generally 3 key areas that the prosecution works on to prove the offence to the jury, which we will share below. 

1. Evidence of an agreement

Direct evidence:

This is the most compelling form of evidence and includes:

• Recorded conversations: Phone calls, text messages, emails, or surveillance recordings that explicitly detail the agreement.   
• Witness Testimony: Statements from individuals who overheard or were involved in the agreement.
• Written Plans: Documents outlining the murder plot, including details about the victim, method, and timing, whether physical or digital. 

Circumstantial evidence:

Often, direct evidence can be limited, and the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, which infers the existence of an agreement:

• Association: Evidence showing that the defendants were closely associated and had opportunities to discuss the plan.
• Actions: Evidence of actions taken by the defendants that suggest they were preparing to commit murder, such as purchasing weapons or conducting surveillance.
• Shared Knowledge: Evidence that the defendants shared knowledge about the intended victim or the planned attack.
• Patterns of Behaviour: Evidence showing that the defendants were acting in a way that is consistent with the planning of a murder.

2. Proving intent:

Put simply, proving intent means displaying to the jury that the accused had a willingness to plan the murder. This can include things such as:

• Statements of intent: Direct evidence of the defendants’ intent, such as statements expressing a desire to kill the victim.

• Actions and preparations: Actions taken by the defendants that demonstrate their intent to kill, such as acquiring lethal weapons, conducting reconnaissance of the victim’s home or workplace, and Planning an escape route.

• Motive: Evidence of a motive (why they planned this), such as revenge, jealousy, or financial gain, can help to establish intent.

• Inferences: The jury can draw inferences about the defendants’ intent from their words and actions.

3. Corroboration:

Corroboration is the process of creating a coherent narrative from the evidences provided in order to establish a clear reason for the conspiracy, as well as a timeline. In a nutshell, it is supporting the accusation of the crime by using all evidence and information available. This i done via:  

• Independent evidence: The prosecution will seek to corroborate evidence from multiple sources to strengthen their case.

• Consistency: The evidence must be consistent and coherent, forming a logical narrative of the conspiracy.

How does someone defend against an accusation of conspiracy to commit murder?

Defending against an accusation of conspiracy to commit murder in a UK court is a complex undertaking. The defence strategy will depend heavily on the specific evidence presented by the prosecution. Here’s a look at the common defence approaches:

1. Challenging the existence of an agreement (the conspiracy):

• Denying the agreement: The defence may argue that no genuine agreement existed. They might claim that conversations were misinterpreted, taken out of context, or simply “talk” without any real intention to act.

• Lack of mutual understanding: They might argue that even if discussions occurred, there was no shared understanding or intention among the parties involved.

• Withdrawal from the Conspiracy: If applicable, the defence may argue that the defendant withdrew from the conspiracy before any action was taken. This requires proving clear and unequivocal communication of withdrawal to the other conspirators.

• Challenging the Credibility of Witnesses: If witness testimony is used to establish the agreement, the defense may attack the credibility of those witnesses, highlighting inconsistencies or biases.

2. Challenging the Intent:

• Lack of intent to kill: The defence may argue that the defendant did not intend to kill the victim. They might claim that any actions or discussions were intended to cause harm, but not death.

• Misinterpretation of actions: They may argue that the defendant’s actions were misinterpreted and that they had innocent intentions.

• Diminished responsibility: In some cases, the defence might argue that the defendant’s mental state at the time of the alleged conspiracy impaired their ability to form the necessary intent.

• Duress: The defence may claim that the defendant was forced or coerced into the conspiracy.

3. Challenging the Evidence:

• Exclusion of evidence: The defence may attempt to have evidence excluded on the grounds that it was obtained illegally or that it is unreliable.

• • Challenging the interpretation of evidence: They may argue that the prosecution has misinterpreted the evidence and that alternative explanations are possible.

• Creating reasonable doubt: The overarching goal of the defence is to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. This can be achieved by highlighting weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.

Legal defence for conspiracy accusations