There is therefore no requirement that each conspirator participate in any overt acts provided that he or she was in agreement with the common plan to commit the offence: Belyea v. R. (1932), 1932 CanLII 1 (SCC), 57 C.C.C. 318 (S.C.C.). Nor is there a requirement to show proximity between when the agreement was made and when the object of the agreement, the offence, was carried out. The conspiracy is the agreement accompanied by a mutual intention to carry out the agreement at the time the agreement was made. It is no defence to a charge of conspiracy that the accused having initially agreed to the common plan subsequently changed his mind and withdrew from the conspiracy before the object of the conspiracy was carried out. By that point, the offence has been completed.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.