Conspiracy contrary to s 11.5(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code

Recently, in DPP (Cth) v Knopp (a pseudonym) & Anor [2023] VSCA 315, the Court of Appeal allowed the Director’s interlocutory appeal against the dismissal by a trial judge, pursuant to s 11.5(6) of the Criminal Code, of a charge of conspiracy contrary to s 11.5(1). The Court set aside the dismissal notwithstanding that the charge encompassed substantive offences by the accused concerning two very large commercial importations of methamphetamine. The Court's decision considers the limits of s 11.5(6), and the principles which may justify the choice of a conspiracy charge by the DPP (Cth) even when charges for substantive offences are available, taking into account the observations of the High Court in R v Hoar (1981) 148 CLR 32.

Raelene Sharp KC, DPP (Cth), will discuss the approach of her office in considering whether to prosecute and give express consent pursuant to s 11.5(8) to a charge of conspiracy in the light of Knopp. Paul Holdenson KC, who was lead counsel for the DPP (Cth) in Knopp, will explain and discuss the implications of the decision.

CLICK HERE TO RSVP

This is an in-person event and will also be available online via livestream. The session will be recorded for viewing later.