Conspiracy (crime)
Encyclopedia
In the criminal law
, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act
in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempt
s which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence
, the actus reus
is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance
by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence
.
, the crime of conspiracy was capable of infinite growth, able to accommodate any new situation and to criminalize it if the level of threat to society
was sufficiently great. The court
s were therefore acting in the role of the legislature
to create new offences and, following the Law Commission
Report No. 76 on "Reform of the Common Law", the Criminal Law Act 1977
produced a statutory offence and abolished all the common law varieties of conspiracy, except two:
Conspiracy to outrage public decency is an offence under the common law of England and Wales.
Section 5(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977
does not affect the common law offence of conspiracy if, and in so far as, it can be committed by entering into an agreement to engage in conduct which tends to corrupt public morals, or which outrages public decency, but which does not amount to or involve the commission of an offence if carried out by a single person otherwise than in pursuance of an agreement.
Jonathan Herring said that conspiracy to "corrupt public morals" has no definitive case law, that it is unknown whether or not it is a substantive offence, and that it is unlikely that conspirators will be prosecuted for this offence.
These two offences cover situations where, for example, a publisher encourages immoral behavior through explicit content in a magazine or periodical. But, in R v Rowley (1991) 4 All ER 649, the defendant left notes in public places over a period of three weeks offering money and presents to boys with the intention of luring them for immoral purposes, but there was nothing lewd, obscene or disgusting in the notes. The judge ruled that the jury
was entitled to look at the purpose behind the notes in deciding whether they were lewd or disgusting. On appeal against conviction, it was held that an act outraging public decency required a deliberate act which was in itself lewd, obscene or disgusting, so Rowley’s motive in leaving the notes was irrelevant and, since there was nothing in the notes themselves capable of outraging public decency, the conviction was quashed.
: see Law Com No 76, paras 1.9 and 1.16. Henceforward it would only be an offence to agree to engage in a course of conduct which was itself a criminal offence.
Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 provides:
Section 1(1A) bans conspiracies part of which occurred in England and Wales to commit an "act or other event constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country or territory." Many conditions apply including prosecutions need consent from the Attorney General.
) to be committed within the territorial jurisdiction
of the court, and the parties must "intend" or "know" the facts which make the conduct criminal even where the full offence is strict. Thus, the mens rea of conspiracy is a completely separate issue from the mens rea required of the substantive crime: Attorney General ex parte Rockall (1999) Crim LR 972 where the issue of corruption in public office was complicated by the presence of the presumption of corruption in s2 Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 unless the contrary is proved in respect of payments to persons in public employment (a provision that probably breaches the human rights
requirement as to a presumption of innocence
).
The so-called Wharton's
rule (also known as "Concert of Action Rule") regarding conspiracies is relatively simple: Unless the statute specifies otherwise, when two people are required to commit a crime, such as gambling or prostitution, there can be no charge of conspiracy where only two people are involved. The reasoning behind this rule, which has been enacted in many states, is that conspiracies, by their very nature, bring together individuals with different resources and abilities. This group action is dangerous. However, where there are only two people involved in a crime that requires two people to commit it, there is no concerted group action. To prosecute gambling or prostitution as a conspiracy, most states require that more than two people be involved.
The Law Commission published a consultation paper on this subject in 1975.
was created by section 4 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861
.
Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law only requires the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. This is sometimes described as a "general intent" to violate the law.
In United States v. Shabani
, 513 U.S. 10 (1994) the United States Supreme Court
ruled:
U.S. Congress intended to adopt the common law
definition of conspiracy, which does not make the doing of any act other than the act of conspiring a condition of liability" at least insofar as to establish a violation of a narcotics conspiracy under . Therefore, the Government need not prove the commission of any overt acts in furtherance of those narcotics conspiracies prohibited by . The Shabani case illustrates that it is a matter of legislative prerogative whether to require an overt step, or not to require an overt step in any conspiracy statute. The court compares the need to prove an overt step to be criminally liable under the conspiracy provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, while there is no such requirement under .
The Supreme Court pointed out that common law did not require proof of an overt step, and the need to prove it for a federal conspiracy conviction requires Congress to specifically require proof of an overt step to accomplish the conspiracy. It is a legislative choice on a statute by statute basis.
The conspirators can be guilty even if they do not know the identity of the other members of the conspiracy. See United States v. Monroe, 73 F.3d 129 (7th Cir. 1995), aff'd., 124 F.3d 206 (7th Cir. 1997).
California criminal law
is somewhat representative of other jurisdictions. A punishable conspiracy exists when at least two people form an agreement to commit a crime, and at least one of them does some act in furtherance to committing the crime. Each person is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of the crime itself. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/182-185.html
One example of this is The Han Twins Murder Conspiracy case, where one twin sister attempted to hire two youths to have her twin sister killed.
One important feature of a conspiracy charge is that it relieves prosecutors of the need to prove the particular roles of conspirators. If two persons plot to kill another (and this can be proven), and the victim is indeed killed as a result of the actions of either conspirator, it is not necessary to prove with specificity which of the conspirators actually pulled the trigger. (Otherwise, both conspirators could conceivably handle the gun—leaving two sets of fingerprints—and then demand acquittals for both, based on the fact that the prosecutor would be unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which of the two conspirators was the triggerman). A conspiracy conviction requires proof that a) the conspirators did indeed conspire to commit the crime, and b) the crime was committed by an individual involved in the conspiracy. Proof of which individual it was is usually not necessary.
It is also an option for prosecutors, when bringing conspiracy charges, to decline to indict all members of the conspiracy (though their existence may be mentioned in an indictment
). Such unindicted co-conspirators are commonly found when the identities or whereabouts of members of a conspiracy are unknown; or when the prosecution is only concerned with a particular individual among the conspirators. This is common when the target of the indictment is an elected official or an organized crime
leader; and the co-conspirators are persons of little or no public importance. More famously, President Richard Nixon
was named as an unindicted co-conspirator by the Watergate
special prosecutor, in an event leading up to his eventual resignation.
.
for Nazi leadership who were charged with participating in a "conspiracy or common plan" to commit international crimes. This was controversial because conspiracy was not a part of the European civil law
tradition. Nonetheless, the crime of conspiracy continued in international criminal justice, being incorporated into the international criminal laws against genocide.
It should however be noted, that of the Big Five, only the French Republic exclusively subscribed to the civil law
; the USSR subscribed to the socialist law
, the U.S. and the U.K.
followed the common law
; and the Republic of China
did not have a cause of action
at this particular proceeding. (In addition, it upheld both the civil
and the customary law). In any event, the jurisdiction of the International Military Tribunal was unique and extraordinary at its time, being a court convened under the law of nations and the laws and customs of war, was the first of its sort in human history, found several defendants before it not guilty, and, of the guilty parties, it is certainly arguable that of the conspiracies plotted, many bore fruit.
Criminal law
Criminal law, is the body of law that relates to crime. It might be defined as the body of rules that defines conduct that is not allowed because it is held to threaten, harm or endanger the safety and welfare of people, and that sets out the punishment to be imposed on people who do not obey...
, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act
Overt Act
In criminal law, an overt act , an open act, one that can be clearly proved by evidence, and from which criminal intent can be inferred, as opposed to a mere intention in the mind to commit a crime...
in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempt
Attempt
Attempt was originally an offence under the common law of England.Attempt crimes are crimes where the defendant's actions have the form of the actual enaction of the crime itself: the actions must go beyond mere preparation....
s which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence
Concurrence
In Western jurisprudence, concurrence is the apparent need to prove the simultaneous occurrence of both actus reus and mens rea , to constitute a crime; except in crimes of strict liability...
, the actus reus
Actus reus
Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions...
is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance
Repentance
Repentance is a change of thought to correct a wrong and gain forgiveness from a person who is wronged. In religious contexts it usually refers to confession to God, ceasing sin against God, and resolving to live according to religious law...
by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence
Sentence (law)
In law, a sentence forms the final explicit act of a judge-ruled process, and also the symbolic principal act connected to his function. The sentence can generally involve a decree of imprisonment, a fine and/or other punishments against a defendant convicted of a crime...
.
Common law offence
At common lawCommon law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
, the crime of conspiracy was capable of infinite growth, able to accommodate any new situation and to criminalize it if the level of threat to society
Society
A society, or a human society, is a group of people related to each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or virtual territory, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations...
was sufficiently great. The court
Court
A court is a form of tribunal, often a governmental institution, with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes between parties and carry out the administration of justice in civil, criminal, and administrative matters in accordance with the rule of law...
s were therefore acting in the role of the legislature
Legislature
A legislature is a kind of deliberative assembly with the power to pass, amend, and repeal laws. The law created by a legislature is called legislation or statutory law. In addition to enacting laws, legislatures usually have exclusive authority to raise or lower taxes and adopt the budget and...
to create new offences and, following the Law Commission
Law Commission
A Law Commission or Law Reform Commission is an independent body set up by a government to conduct law reform; that is, to consider the state of laws in a jurisdiction and make recommendations or proposals for legal changes or restructuring...
Report No. 76 on "Reform of the Common Law", the Criminal Law Act 1977
Criminal Law Act 1977
The Criminal Law Act 1977 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Most of it only applies to England and Wales. It is mainly significant because it defines the offence of conspiracy in English law...
produced a statutory offence and abolished all the common law varieties of conspiracy, except two:
Conspiracy to corrupt public morals or to outrage public decency
Conspiracy to corrupt public morals is an offence under the common law of England and Wales.Conspiracy to outrage public decency is an offence under the common law of England and Wales.
Section 5(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977
Criminal Law Act 1977
The Criminal Law Act 1977 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Most of it only applies to England and Wales. It is mainly significant because it defines the offence of conspiracy in English law...
does not affect the common law offence of conspiracy if, and in so far as, it can be committed by entering into an agreement to engage in conduct which tends to corrupt public morals, or which outrages public decency, but which does not amount to or involve the commission of an offence if carried out by a single person otherwise than in pursuance of an agreement.
Jonathan Herring said that conspiracy to "corrupt public morals" has no definitive case law, that it is unknown whether or not it is a substantive offence, and that it is unlikely that conspirators will be prosecuted for this offence.
These two offences cover situations where, for example, a publisher encourages immoral behavior through explicit content in a magazine or periodical. But, in R v Rowley (1991) 4 All ER 649, the defendant left notes in public places over a period of three weeks offering money and presents to boys with the intention of luring them for immoral purposes, but there was nothing lewd, obscene or disgusting in the notes. The judge ruled that the jury
Jury
A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to ascertain the guilt, or lack thereof, in a crime. In Anglophone jurisdictions, the verdict may be guilty,...
was entitled to look at the purpose behind the notes in deciding whether they were lewd or disgusting. On appeal against conviction, it was held that an act outraging public decency required a deliberate act which was in itself lewd, obscene or disgusting, so Rowley’s motive in leaving the notes was irrelevant and, since there was nothing in the notes themselves capable of outraging public decency, the conviction was quashed.
Statutory offence
This offence was created as a result of the Law Commission's recommendations in their Report, Conspiracy and Criminal Law Reform, 1976, Law Com No 76. This was part of the Commission's programme of codification of the criminal law. The eventual aim was to abolish all the remaining common law offences and replace them, where appropriate, with offences precisely defined by statute. The common law offences were seen as unacceptably vague and open to development by the courts in silly ways which might offend the principle of certainty. There was an additional problem that it could be a criminal conspiracy at common law to engage in conduct which was not in itself a criminal offence: see Law Com No 76, para 1.7. This was a major mischief at which the 1977 Act was aimed, although it retained (as a temporary measure) the convenient concept of a common law conspiracy to defraudConspiracy to defraud
Conspiracy to defraud is an offence under the common law of England and Wales and Northern Ireland.-England and Wales:The standard definition of a conspiracy to defraud was provided by Lord Dilhorne in Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, when he said that Conspiracy to defraud therefore...
: see Law Com No 76, paras 1.9 and 1.16. Henceforward it would only be an offence to agree to engage in a course of conduct which was itself a criminal offence.
Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 provides:
- "...if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, either -
- (a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or
- (b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible, [added by S.5 Criminal Attempts Act 1981]
- he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question."
Section 1(1A) bans conspiracies part of which occurred in England and Wales to commit an "act or other event constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country or territory." Many conditions apply including prosecutions need consent from the Attorney General.
Exceptions
- Under section 2(1) the intended victim of the offence can not be guilty of conspiracy.
- Under section 2(2) there can be no conspiracy where the only other person(s) to the agreement are:
-
- (a) a spouseSpouseThe term spouse generally refers to a partner in a marriage:* Husband, referring to a male partner* Wife, referring to a female partner* In some usages, a partner in a civil union, domestic partnership or common-law marriage- See also :* Bride...
or civil partner; http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T997337556&format=GNBFULL&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T997337558&cisb=22_T997337557&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=274768&docNo=4 - (b) a person under the age of criminal responsibility; and
- (c) an intended victim of that offence.
- (a) a spouse
Elements of the offence
There must be a real agreement with the parties having agreed all the major details of the "crime" or "crimes" (not including other inchoate offencesInchoate offense
An inchoate offense, inchoate offence, or inchoate crime is the crime of preparing for or seeking to commit another crime. The most common example of an inchoate offense is conspiracy...
) to be committed within the territorial jurisdiction
Criminal jurisdiction
Criminal jurisdiction is a term used in constitutional law and public law to describe the power of courts to hear a case brought by a state accusing a defendant of the commission of a crime...
of the court, and the parties must "intend" or "know" the facts which make the conduct criminal even where the full offence is strict. Thus, the mens rea of conspiracy is a completely separate issue from the mens rea required of the substantive crime: Attorney General ex parte Rockall (1999) Crim LR 972 where the issue of corruption in public office was complicated by the presence of the presumption of corruption in s2 Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 unless the contrary is proved in respect of payments to persons in public employment (a provision that probably breaches the human rights
Human rights
Human rights are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being." Human rights are thus conceived as universal and egalitarian . These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in both national...
requirement as to a presumption of innocence
Presumption of innocence
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many...
).
The so-called Wharton's
Francis Wharton
Francis Wharton was an American legal writer and educationalist.He graduated at Yale in 1839, was admitted to the bar in 1843, became prominent in Pennsylvania politics as a Democrat, served as assistant attorney-general in 1845. In Philadelphia, he edited the North American and United States...
rule (also known as "Concert of Action Rule") regarding conspiracies is relatively simple: Unless the statute specifies otherwise, when two people are required to commit a crime, such as gambling or prostitution, there can be no charge of conspiracy where only two people are involved. The reasoning behind this rule, which has been enacted in many states, is that conspiracies, by their very nature, bring together individuals with different resources and abilities. This group action is dangerous. However, where there are only two people involved in a crime that requires two people to commit it, there is no concerted group action. To prosecute gambling or prostitution as a conspiracy, most states require that more than two people be involved.
Things said or done by one conspirator
Lord Steyn in R v Hayter [2005] UKHL 6 (3 February 2005) at paragraph 25 said:Conspiracy to trespass
See Kamara v Director of Public Prosecutions [1974] AC 104, [1973] 3 WLR 198, [1973] 2 All ER 1242, 117 Sol Jo 581, 57 Cr App R 880, HLHouse of Lords
The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster....
Conspiracy to effect a public mischief
In Withers v Director of Public Prosecutions, the House of Lords unanimously held that conspiracy to effect a public mischief was not a separate and distinct class of criminal conspiracy. This overuled earlier decisions to the contrary effect.The Law Commission published a consultation paper on this subject in 1975.
Conspiracy to murder
The offence of conspiracy to murderConspiracy to murder
Conspiracy to murder is a statutory offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.-England and Wales:Conspiracy to murder is an offence by virtue of section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.Mens rea...
was created by section 4 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861
Offences Against The Person Act 1861
The Offences against the Person Act 1861 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It consolidated provisions related to offences against the person from a number of earlier statutes into a single Act...
.
Statutory offence
See Part IV of the Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (S.I. 1983/1120 (N.I. 13)).United States
Conspiracy has been defined in the US as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions. For example, planning to rob a bank (an illegal act) to raise money for charity (a legal end) remains a criminal conspiracy because the parties agreed to use illegal means to accomplish the end goal. A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of the crime. One legal dictionary, law.com, provides this useful example on the application of conspiracy law to an everyday sales transaction tainted by corruption. It shows how the law can handle both the criminal and the civil need for justice.
[A] scheme by a group of salesmen to sell used automobiles as new, could be prosecuted as a crime of fraud and conspiracy, and also allow a purchaser of an auto to sue for damages [in civil court] for the fraud and conspiracy.
Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law only requires the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. This is sometimes described as a "general intent" to violate the law.
In United States v. Shabani
United States v. Shabani
United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding conspiracy liability under federal statutes...
, 513 U.S. 10 (1994) the United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
ruled:
U.S. Congress intended to adopt the common law
Common law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
definition of conspiracy, which does not make the doing of any act other than the act of conspiring a condition of liability" at least insofar as to establish a violation of a narcotics conspiracy under . Therefore, the Government need not prove the commission of any overt acts in furtherance of those narcotics conspiracies prohibited by . The Shabani case illustrates that it is a matter of legislative prerogative whether to require an overt step, or not to require an overt step in any conspiracy statute. The court compares the need to prove an overt step to be criminally liable under the conspiracy provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, while there is no such requirement under .
The Supreme Court pointed out that common law did not require proof of an overt step, and the need to prove it for a federal conspiracy conviction requires Congress to specifically require proof of an overt step to accomplish the conspiracy. It is a legislative choice on a statute by statute basis.
The conspirators can be guilty even if they do not know the identity of the other members of the conspiracy. See United States v. Monroe, 73 F.3d 129 (7th Cir. 1995), aff'd., 124 F.3d 206 (7th Cir. 1997).
California criminal law
California criminal law
California Criminal Law generally follows the law of the United States. However, there are both substantive and procedural differences between how the United States Federal Government and California prosecute alleged violations of criminal law...
is somewhat representative of other jurisdictions. A punishable conspiracy exists when at least two people form an agreement to commit a crime, and at least one of them does some act in furtherance to committing the crime. Each person is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of the crime itself. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/182-185.html
One example of this is The Han Twins Murder Conspiracy case, where one twin sister attempted to hire two youths to have her twin sister killed.
One important feature of a conspiracy charge is that it relieves prosecutors of the need to prove the particular roles of conspirators. If two persons plot to kill another (and this can be proven), and the victim is indeed killed as a result of the actions of either conspirator, it is not necessary to prove with specificity which of the conspirators actually pulled the trigger. (Otherwise, both conspirators could conceivably handle the gun—leaving two sets of fingerprints—and then demand acquittals for both, based on the fact that the prosecutor would be unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which of the two conspirators was the triggerman). A conspiracy conviction requires proof that a) the conspirators did indeed conspire to commit the crime, and b) the crime was committed by an individual involved in the conspiracy. Proof of which individual it was is usually not necessary.
It is also an option for prosecutors, when bringing conspiracy charges, to decline to indict all members of the conspiracy (though their existence may be mentioned in an indictment
Indictment
An indictment , in the common-law legal system, is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that maintain the concept of felonies, the serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that lack the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an...
). Such unindicted co-conspirators are commonly found when the identities or whereabouts of members of a conspiracy are unknown; or when the prosecution is only concerned with a particular individual among the conspirators. This is common when the target of the indictment is an elected official or an organized crime
Organized crime
Organized crime or criminal organizations are transnational, national, or local groupings of highly centralized enterprises run by criminals for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity, most commonly for monetary profit. Some criminal organizations, such as terrorist organizations, are...
leader; and the co-conspirators are persons of little or no public importance. More famously, President Richard Nixon
Richard Nixon
Richard Milhous Nixon was the 37th President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. The only president to resign the office, Nixon had previously served as a US representative and senator from California and as the 36th Vice President of the United States from 1953 to 1961 under...
was named as an unindicted co-conspirator by the Watergate
Watergate scandal
The Watergate scandal was a political scandal during the 1970s in the United States resulting from the break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., and the Nixon administration's attempted cover-up of its involvement...
special prosecutor, in an event leading up to his eventual resignation.
Conspiracy against rights
The U.S. has a specific statute dealing with conspiracies to deprive a citizen of rights justified by the ConstitutionConstitution
A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is...
.
International law
Conspiracy law was used at the Nuremberg TrialsNuremberg Trials
The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals, held by the victorious Allied forces of World War II, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of the defeated Nazi Germany....
for Nazi leadership who were charged with participating in a "conspiracy or common plan" to commit international crimes. This was controversial because conspiracy was not a part of the European civil law
Civil law (legal system)
Civil law is a legal system inspired by Roman law and whose primary feature is that laws are codified into collections, as compared to common law systems that gives great precedential weight to common law on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different...
tradition. Nonetheless, the crime of conspiracy continued in international criminal justice, being incorporated into the international criminal laws against genocide.
It should however be noted, that of the Big Five, only the French Republic exclusively subscribed to the civil law
Civil law (legal system)
Civil law is a legal system inspired by Roman law and whose primary feature is that laws are codified into collections, as compared to common law systems that gives great precedential weight to common law on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different...
; the USSR subscribed to the socialist law
Socialist law
Socialist law denotes a general type of legal system which has been used in communist and formerly communist states. It is based on the civil law system, with major modifications and additions from Marxist-Leninist ideology. There is controversy as to whether socialist law ever constituted a...
, the U.S. and the U.K.
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIn the United Kingdom and Dependencies, other languages have been officially recognised as legitimate autochthonous languages under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages...
followed the common law
Common law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
; and the Republic of China
Republic of China
The Republic of China , commonly known as Taiwan , is a unitary sovereign state located in East Asia. Originally based in mainland China, the Republic of China currently governs the island of Taiwan , which forms over 99% of its current territory, as well as Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and other minor...
did not have a cause of action
Cause of action
In the law, a cause of action is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party. The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit...
at this particular proceeding. (In addition, it upheld both the civil
Civil law (legal system)
Civil law is a legal system inspired by Roman law and whose primary feature is that laws are codified into collections, as compared to common law systems that gives great precedential weight to common law on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different...
and the customary law). In any event, the jurisdiction of the International Military Tribunal was unique and extraordinary at its time, being a court convened under the law of nations and the laws and customs of war, was the first of its sort in human history, found several defendants before it not guilty, and, of the guilty parties, it is certainly arguable that of the conspiracies plotted, many bore fruit.