R v Saik [2006] UKHL 18

Court: House of Lords

Facts: D suspected that his associates were involved in money laundering activities but continued to assist them, hoping to gain financially. D was charged with conspiracy to launder money.

Held: Appeal allowed. The conviction was quashed. The House of Lords found that D’s suspicion was not sufficient to establish the requisite intent for conspiracy. Knowledge of the crime alone was not enough; the prosecution needed to prove that D intended to participate in the conspiracy.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Bingham stated, "To establish conspiracy, the prosecution must demonstrate not merely knowledge or suspicion of criminal activities but a firm intention to participate in the conspiracy."

• Lord Nicholls -> Conspiracy involves three mental components:

  1. 1) The mental element related to forming an agreement.

  2. 2) The intent to engage in conduct that will inevitably involve the commission of the crime by one or more of the conspirators.

  3. 3) The intent or awareness that a fact or circumstance essential for committing the underlying offense will be present.