R v Broad [1997] 1 Cr App R 289

Court: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Facts: D1 and D2 agreed to produce a Class A drug but did not specify which drug. The production of the actual drug was later found to be unspecified.

Held: Conviction upheld. The court held that the exact type of Class A drug was not essential as long as there was agreement to produce a Class A drug.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Justice Stuart-Smith observed, "The essential aspect of conspiracy is the agreement to commit a crime, not the precise details of how it will be carried out."