Prima Facie Journey

Section 10 of the Evidence Act 1950 provides facts relating to anything said, done or written by the accused (2 or more) in reference to their common intention to conspire are relevant. They are relevant for the purpose of proving the conspiracy and showing that the accused were conspirators. All acts and statements of a co-conspirator are admissible against all the conspirators. This is only applicable for criminal conspiracy. 

Things said or done by conspirators are relevant against each other, under two conditions:

a) There is reasonable ground to believe that the conspiracy exists. There was  an agreement between two or  more persons to commit an offence or an actionable wrong. 

b) It must be in reference to the common intention existing at the time, when the thing was, said or written by one of them. 

Looking at Liew  Kaling v PP [1960], court held that statements made after the completion of a crime are not admissible for the purpose of proving conspiracy. Also, in Khalid Panjang & Ors v PP [1964], Federal Court held that a statement made after the carrying out of a conspiracy is inadmissible to prove the conspiracy; 'common intention' signifies a common intention existing at the time the statement was made. 

Conspiracy can be seen in Nik Hassan bin Nik Hussin & Anor v PP where the appellants were convicted of assembling with others for the purpose of committing gang robbery, contrary to s 402 of the Penal Code. The allegation of the prosecution was that at about 1.30am on 10 December 1946, nine men assembled at a hut on a piece of high ground under scrub, for the purpose of committing robbery at the house of one Sulaiman about 100 to 200 yards away. However, court held that on a charge of assembling with others to commit gang robbery, the purpose of the assembly must be proved. When the only evidence of this was technically inadmissible, the conviction would be set aside.

The other case to refer to is Mirza Akhbar v King Emperor [1940] where court  held that the thing said, done or written can be accepted as facts relevant to conspiracy. In this case, the appellant together with a murderer Umar Sher and a lady, Mt Mehr Taja had been accused of murdering Ali Askar, husband to Mt Mehr  Taja. The statement against Umar Sher was clear because he was caught during the incident and was  seen holding a broken gun that had just been used to shot. Umar Sher had been bribed by the appellant to murder Ali Askar. This conspiracy has been found out through 3 letters that had been sent from Mt. Mehr Taja to the appellant. Mt Mehr Taja in her letter said that she wished to destroy Ali Askar so  that they can both get married and there's also content to find money. That is why whatever said, done or written by them are relevant facts to prove conspiracy. 

It is indeed not easy to prove conspiracy. Sometimes people seen together with the robbers does not mean that there are conspiracy. To prove that there has been conspiracy, there must be common intention to conspire. That is why anything said, done or written is taken into consideration to prove the existence of conspiracy.