Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow

Law of Crimes

Conspiracy, Definition, Types, Essentials

Submitted To:Dr.ChandraSen Pratap Singh Submitted by: Suneel Kumar Patel

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law A-5, 3rd Semester 2019-2020

University of Lucknow LL.B.(Hons) Integrated

1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. Introduction………………………………………..3
2. Definition of Conspiracy under the laws………….3
3. Conspiracy a Tort or Crime?.................................3
4. Sine Qua Non For Conspiracy…………………….4
5. Who can be sued for this offence?.........................5
6. Types of Conspiracy……………………………….6
7. Judicial Pronouncement……………………………8
8. Conclusion………………………………………..10
9. Bibliography………………………………………11

2
 Introduction
Conspiracy is of two kinds, one is under the scope of conspiracy torts and the other
is under law of crimes. The focus is on tortious conspiracy. It shall be defining
conspiracy and then a general comparison between tortuous and criminal
conspiracy. It shall also cover its essentials, types and deal with the circumstances
where one can be sued for the same which would be supported by the case laws.

Definitions of Conspiracy Under the laws

When two or more persons without lawful justification combine for the purpose of
willfully causing damage to the plaintiff, and actual damage results there from,
they commit the tort of conspiracy. In other words a conspiracy is an unlawful
combination of two or more persons to do, that which is contrary to law, or to do
that which is wrongful and harmful towards other person, or to carry out an object
not in itself unlawful by unlawful means.

Conspiracy: A Tort and/or a Crime?

Conspiracy is both a tort and a crime.2 Criminal conspiracy is different from

conspiracy as tort. The Indian penal code, 1860 deals with it. Under criminal law,
merely an agreement between the parties to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal
means is actionable. It is not necessary that the conspirators must have acted in
pursuance of their agreement, that is, fulfillment of the act conspired is not
necessary. The tort of conspiracy is, however, not committed by a mere agreement

3
between the parties, the tort is completed only when actual damage results to the
plaintiff.

Sine Qua Non for Conspiracy

1) There should be more than one person:

The tort requires an agreement,
combination, understanding, or concert to injure, involving two or more
persons. There should be at least two persons then only an action for
conspiracy can be made out. Husband and wife were once thought to be one
person in the eyes of the common law and, therefore, to be incapable of
conspiring together. This is still the case in criminal conspiracy. But it has
been held that, in the absence of binding authority, and of compelling
rationale of public policy, the primitive maxim that spouses are one person
should not be imported to the tort of conspiracy.
2) The act done should be without any lawful justification:
The plaintiff has to
prove that the defendant combined to do the act was illegal or legal but done
by an illegal means. It should not be enforceable by law. In other words we
can say that there should not be any lawful excuse or it should be without
any lawful justification. Unless this requirement is made out there shall have
no conspiracy on the part of the defendants.

4
 3) It should be done willfully:
The object or the purpose of the combination must
be to cause damage to the plaintiff. The test is not what the defendants
contemplated as a likely or even an inevitable consequence of their conduct;
it is “what is in truth the object in the minds of the conspirators or combiners
when they acted as they did? Malice in the sense of malevolence, spite of ill
will is not essential for liability; what is required is that the combiners
should have acted in order that (not with the result that, even the foreseeable
result) the plaintiff should suffer damage. The act should be done willfully,
if isn‟t then no action can be made out for conspiracy.
4) Damage on the part of the plaintiff:
Damage is an essential element of the tort
of conspiracy, the gist of the cause of action. It has been held that the
damage constituted by the expense incurred by plaintiffs in exposing and
resisting the wrongful activities of the defendants can be awarded to them as
damage directly caused by the conspiracy. Damages for injury to feelings or
to reputation, however, cannot be recovered in an action based upon a
“lawful means” conspiracy to injure.

Who can be sued for this offence?

Where persons engage in such a conspiracy, and in pursuance thereof do an act

which cause damage to another, they or any one of them can be sued. The mere act
of conspiracy is not the subject of a civil action. To sustain an action special
damage must be proved. It is the damage wrongfully done, and not the conspiracy
that is the gist of action for conspiracy. If the act which injures A is not that of a

5
single individual, but is due to a combination of two or more persons, then motive
or purpose becomes material. Thus, where several persons combine to hiss at an
actor, or to „boycott‟ a tradesman or merchant, the element of combination is part
and parcel of the wrong, since the damage could not have occurred without it. The
illegal or malicious combination is then the gist of the wrong. “In all such cases it
will be found that there existed either an ultimate object of malice, or wrong,
wrongful means of execution involving elements of injury to the public, or, at
least, negativing the pursuit of a lawful object.

Types of Conspiracy

The tort of conspiracy takes two forms: conspiracy to use unlawful means, and
conspiracy to injure. The latter does, but the former does not, required a
predominant purpose to injure. Liability for conspiracy to injure, where the acts
would without combination be lawful, forms a qualification to the general rule that
the mere agreement of many persons to act in concern cannot make the act of any
one or wrongful, if it would not be wrongful when done by each alone
independently. Briefly stated, the tort of conspiracy can be divided into two
classes: 1) where the dominant purpose is to injure a third party though the means
employed are not themselves unlawful; and 2) where the means employed are by
themselves lawful.

 Conspiracy to injure:

The purpose to injure or harm a third party must be

distinguished from the purpose to advance the legitimate interests of the persons
combining together. In Mogul Steamship Co.‟s case3 , it is laid down that no

6
action for a conspiracy lies against persons who act in concert to advance their
legitimate interests but as a necessary consequence to damage another and do
damage him, but at the same time merely exercise their own rights by lawful
means and who infringe no rights of other people. Thus acts done by X and Y who
are acting in concert solely for the purpose of protecting and extending their trade
and increasing their profits, and which do not involves the employment of any
means by themselves unlawful are not actionable, even though these cause damage
to A, not actionable; provided that his competitors are acting solely with the lawful
object of securing success in trade and use no unlawful means.

Quinn v. Leathem holds that a combination of two or more persons,

without justification or excuse, to injure a man in his trade by inducing his
customers or servants to break their contracts with him, or not to deal with him, or
continue in his employment is, if it results in damage to him, actionable. A person
has a right to carry on his own business, as long as he does not break the law, in the
way he himself prefers. Hence, it is the legal duty of third person not to use
intimidation or coercion towards him or his customers, with a view to prevent him
from carrying on his business in the way he chooses. In this case the facts are as:
The plaintiff was a butcher and the defendants were officials of a trade union. The
defendants asked the plaintiff to discharge certain workmen who did not belong to
the Union. The plaintiff refused on which the defendants compelled the plaintiff‟s
chief customer to cease to deal with him by threatening that unless that was done,
they would withdraw all their workmen. It was found by the jury that the
defendants had maliciously conspired to induce the plaintiff‟s customers not to
deal with him. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to sue the defendants for
damages and thus allowed to recover damages.

7
  Unlawful means conspiracy:

If a combination of persons uses unlawful

means to achieve their object and damage results to the plaintiff, he will be no
doubt entitled to sue the persons combining for conspiracy if their predominant
purpose was to injure the plaintiff. Further, if the unlawful means employed by the
combiners are themselves actionable by the plaintiff, even without the combination
as joint tort-feasors for the damage caused to him without taking the aid of tort of
conspiracy. But what happens when the means employed are not actionable though
they are unlawful? The answer given to this question by the Supreme Court of
India and the House of Lords, is that persons combining to use such unlawful
means cannot be sued for conspiracy by the plaintiff suffering damage unless the
purpose of the combination was to injure him. But the purpose to injure the
plaintiff need not be predominant purpose if unlawful means are used; it is
sufficient if it is one of the purposes. After a period of uncertainty the House of
Lords, in a case, reaffirmed that this form of tort does not require a predominant
purpose to injure the plaintiff. However, the tort still requires an intention to injure
the: it is not enough that the defendants combine to do an unlawful act, which has
the effect of causing damage to the plaintiff.

Judicial Pronouncements

(1) Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor Gow and Co

The defendants, who were firms of ship owners trading between china and
Europe, with a view to obtaining for themselves a monopoly of the

8
 homeward tea trade, and thereby keeping up the rate of freight. They formed
themselves into an association, and offered to such merchants and shippers
in china as shipped their tea exclusively in vessels belonging to the
members of the association a rebate of five percent. On all freight paid by
them. The plaintiffs, who were rival ship owners trading between china and
Europe, were excluded by the defendants from all the benefits of the
association, and, in consequence of such exclusion they sustained damage.
The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants alleging conspiracy
to injure them. It was held that the acts of the defendants were done with the
lawful object of protecting and extending their trade and increasing their
profits, and since they had not employed any unlawful means. The
defendants were not held liable and thus the plaintiffs had no cause of
action.

(2) Sorrel v. Smith

The plaintiff, a retail newsagent, who was accustomed to take his
newspapers from R, withdrew his custom from R and started taking
newspapers from W. the defendants, members of a committee of circulation
managers of London daily papers, threatened the cutting off the supply of
newspapers to W if W continued to supply newspapers to the plaintiff. The
defendants had acted so to promote their business interests. The defendants
were not held liable.
(3) Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co. Ltd. v. Veitch
The defendants, a trade union, instructed dockers, who were members of the
union, to refuse to handle the plaintiff‟s goods (without there being any
breach of contract). The object of this embargo was to prevent competition
in the yarn trade and thus helping to secure economic stability of the

9
 industry and thereby increase the wage prospects of the union members in
the mills. The above action by the union was to promote the interest of its
members. There was no conspiracy on the part of the defendants and thus
they were not held liable.
(4) Hunteley v. Thornton
The plaintiff, a member of a union, refused to comply with the union‟s call
for strike. The defendants, the secretary and some members of the union,
wanted the expulsion of the plaintiff from the union but the executive
council of the union decided not to do that. The defendants acting out of
grudge against the plaintiff made efforts to see that the plaintiff remained
out of work. The acts of the defendants were not in furtherance of any union
interest but were actuated by malice and grudge. The defendants were held
liable and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages.

CONCLUSION

After analyzing the scope and nature of conspiracy I came to a conclusion that the
scope of conspiracy in torts is limited. It mainly concerns with trade and business
related cases. In India the scope of conspiracy in tort is very narrow. In most of the
cases the defendants use to escape from the liability by saying that they have acted
so to promote their business interest.

10
 Bibliography

• Stephenson, Graham, “Source book on torts”, Cavendish publishing Ltd., 2nd ed.,
London (2000)

• Baker, C.D., “Tort”, Sweet and Maxwell, 6th ed., London (1996)

• Howarth, David, “Text book on torts”, Butter Worhs publications Co.,

London(1995)

• Brazier R, Margaret, “Clerk and Lindsell on torts”, 17th edn., Sweet and
Maxwell, UK , (1995).

• Gerven, Walter Van, Tort law, Hart publishing, USA (2000).

• Rattan Lal and Dhiraj Lal, “The Law of Torts”, 23rd edn., Wadhwa and Co.,
New Delhi, (1997).

• Bangia, R.K., “Law of Torts”, 16th edn., Allahabad law agency, Haryana,
(2002).

11