The Queen v LK [2010] HCA 17

The Queen v LK [2010] HCA 17

In order to be guilty of the statutory offence of conspiracy to commit an offence under the Criminal Code (Cth), it must be proved that the accused intended each element of the substantive offence, regardless of whether the substantive offence prescribed a lesser fault element such as recklessness. An agreement characterized by recklessness alone as to a key circumstance (such as money being proceeds of crime) is insufficient to constitute conspiracy; specific intention in relation to all essential elements is required. The Crown's argument that recklessness suffices was rejected, affirming that intention is an essential requirement for conspiracy. Consequently, the directed acquittals...

Parties
Appellant: The Queen; Respondent: LK; Respondent: RK
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court of Australia Determination of Appeal From New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in each matter.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Fault Elements, Recklessness, Trial by Jury, Federal Jurisdiction
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Conspiracy Fault Elements Recklessness Trial by Jury Federal Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Appellant

LK

Respondent

RK

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court of Australia Determination of Appeal From New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether under s 11.5(2)(b) of the Criminal Code (Cth) the prosecution must prove intention in relation to each physical element of the substantive offence particularised as the subject of conspiracy, even where the substantive offence prescribes a lesser fault element such as recklessness
  2. 2 Whether elements of statutory conspiracy are wholly contained within s 11.5(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth)
  3. 3 Relevance of common law conspiracy to the Code's interpretation

Ratio Decidendi

In order to be guilty of the statutory offence of conspiracy to commit an offence under the Criminal Code (Cth), it must be proved that the accused intended each element of the substantive offence, regardless of whether the substantive offence prescribed a lesser fault element such as recklessness. An agreement characterized by recklessness alone as to a key circumstance (such as money being proceeds of crime) is insufficient to constitute conspiracy; specific intention in relation to all essential elements is required. The Crown's argument that recklessness suffices was rejected, affirming that intention is an essential requirement for conspiracy. Consequently, the directed acquittals...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in each matter.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.
  • Appellant to pay the costs of the respondent except those occasioned by the respondent's notice of contention.