Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:23

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: Unlawful means conspiracy

More evidence that OBG was misguided on this point. Does the old distinction between mala in se vs mal prohibita help?

Jason Neyers
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

Anthony de Garr Robinson wrote:

Subscribers may be interested to know that the House of Lords judgment in Total is out.

The Lords have elected against conceptual simplicity: The unlawful means necessary for unlawful means conspiracy are very different from the unlawful means for causing loss by unlawful means. Some crimes can constitute unlawful means for the former, whereas OBG tells us that only actionable civil wrongs count as unlawful means for the latter.

The next question is: how do you distinguish between crimes that count for conspiracy (cheating the Revenue) and crimes that do not (speeding pizza delivery motorcyclists).

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>