R v Barnard [1980] 1 WLR 278

Court: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Facts: D1 (Defendant 1) agreed with D2 (Defendant 2) and D3 (Defendant 3) to commit theft, but D2 and D3 committed robbery instead. D1 was charged with conspiracy to rob.

Held: The conviction was quashed. The court determined that although there was an agreement, the specific intent required was missing as D1 was only prepared for theft, not robbery.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Justice Lawton stated, "To establish conspiracy, the mens rea must align with the specific crime intended, and readiness to commit a related but different crime does not suffice."