R v Siracusa (1990) 90 Cr App R 340

Facts

  • The case concerned criminal conspiracy, defined as an agreement between two or more individuals to commit a crime.
  • The defendant, Siracusa, maintained ties with known conspirators and was aware of their illegal activities.
  • The defendant’s relationship with conspirators, repeated contacts, and actions before, during, and after the offence were highlighted as supporting evidence.
  • The evidence included the defendant’s presence at locations connected to the conspiracy, as well as communications and conduct that suggested participation in the criminal plans.
  • In subsequent cases, the precedent from this case was applied where defendants provided facilities (such as storage for drugs) or monitored activities, despite not being directly involved in the substantive offence.

Issues

  1. Whether passive involvement, without active steps in carrying out the offence, can constitute sufficient participation for conspiracy liability.
  2. Whether deliberate connection to a conspiracy, combined with knowledge of its illegal aims, is enough for conviction.
  3. Whether indirect and circumstantial evidence may suffice to prove intentional involvement in a conspiracy.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that passive involvement, such as knowing about the conspiracy and remaining connected to it, is sufficient for conviction.
  • Active steps in furtherance of the conspiracy are not required, provided the defendant intentionally supports the agreement.
  • Deliberate connection to conspirators and awareness of the illegal enterprise were found to be enough to establish criminal liability.
  • The Court affirmed the conviction, relying on indirect evidence, including behaviour, relationships, and repeated communications.

Legal Principles

  • Passive involvement that amounts to intentional connection and support, with knowledge of the conspiracy’s unlawful goals, can give rise to liability for conspiracy.
  • Presence alone does not suffice; there must be evidence of deliberate participation.
  • Indirect and circumstantial evidence, when taken together and viewed in context, can establish guilt in conspiracy cases.
  • The law holds individuals accountable not only for direct actions but for knowingly aiding a conspiracy through indirect support.

Conclusion

R v Siracusa established that deliberate, knowing connection to a conspiracy, even absent active steps, can result in conviction where context and indirect evidence demonstrate intentional involvement. This principle broadened the scope of conspiracy liability within English criminal law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal