R v Anderson [1986] AC 27

Court: House of Lords

Facts: D agreed to help X escape in exchange for money but claimed not to intend for the plan to succeed. D was to purchase and supply diamond wire capable of cutting through metal bars, but was injured in an accident and unable to supply wire.

Held: Appeal dismissed. Conviction upheld. The House of Lords found that the intention to participate in the agreement was sufficient, regardless of D’s belief about the plan’s success.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Bridge remarked, "It is sufficient for conspiracy that the defendant intended to participate in the agreement; belief in the success of the plan or ulterior motives are irrelevant."

💡Leveluplaw : This decision was criticised by Academics 🤓