Abstract
“Conspirators be they that…bind themselves by Oath…or other Alliance, that every of them shall aid and support the Enterprise of each other falsely and maliciously to indite.”Established in the Third Ordinance of Conspirators in 1304; the first definition of conspiracy was to prevent and punish those who would plan to use children to present their false accusations in court on their behalf (as children could not be criminally liable). The aim of the law on conspiracy, although widening the scope, has been clear from the thirteenth century: to prevent and punish the planning of a criminal offence. However, since expanding, the law on conspiracy has been criticised especially in regard to sentencing as “unduly harsh.” This is the result of numerous problems with the current law on conspiracy to murder, which is in urgent need of reform. “On the 10th of October 2007, the law commission proposed many recommendations on reforms of statutory conspiracy” (Law Commission 2018). The focus of this legal research is to explore the current state of law regarding conspiracy to murder and the legislation, case law, scholarly and media articles discussed in this report will evaluate the effectiveness and fairness of the law on conspiracy to murder. Thus, the question to sum up our legal research “Is the current law on conspiracy to commit murder effective and fair?"
Highlights
Current law on Conspiracy to Murder “Conspiracy” derives from the Latin words “con” and “spirare” meaning “to breathe together”[4] and can be defined as an act where two or more people have agreed to commit a crime[5], but is defined within the Criminal Law Act 1977.6 Murder can be defined as “the unlawful killing of another human being, under the Queen’s peace, with malice aforethought.”[7]
“Conspirators be they that...bind themselves by Oath...or other Alliance, that every of them shall aid and support the Enterprise of each other falsely and maliciously to indite.”[1]. Established in the Third Ordinance of Conspirators in 1304; the first definition of conspiracy was to prevent and punish those who would plan to use children to present their false accusations in court on their behalf
Since expanding, the law on conspiracy has been criticised especially in regard to sentencing as “unduly harsh.”[2]. This is the result of numerous problems with the current law on conspiracy to murder, which is in urgent need of reform
Summary
“Conspirators be they that...bind themselves by Oath...or other Alliance, that every of them shall aid and support the Enterprise of each other falsely and maliciously to indite.”[1]. It is important to note that as the offence was committed in August 2004 and life sentences for second list offences could only be imposed if the offence was committed after the section came into force.[25] it was submitted that s224A(1)(b) was inappropriate unless there was ‘some imponderable feature which would make it impossible to forecast the future if the offender were ever were to be released.”[26] Judges stated that Gunn would still “pose a serious danger to the public.” This was valid reason to protect the public in the future following Bentham’s theory to “punish evil.”[27]. The appellants clearly committed a grave offence; it was accepted to impose the sentence as there was a greater need to protect the public
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The Student Journal of Professional Practice and Academic Research
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
