Il peut y avoir complot même si outre l’accusé, aucun autre conspirateur n’est connu

R v Nguyen, 2020 ABCA 345

Lien vers la décision

[21]           The appellant submits that, to secure a conviction for conspiracy, the Crown must prove that at least two of the named persons agreed to achieve the unlawful object. He acknowledges that where an indictment alleges that the named person conspired “with other unknown persons, proof of participation of all named conspirators is not essential”, and that “where the evidence establishes the conspiracy alleged between a named person and a person or persons unknown, the fact that the evidence fails to establish another named person’s complicity does not entitle the first named to an acquittal”: R v Root at para 69, citing R v Paterson (1989) 1985 CanLII 167 (ON CA), 44 CR (3d) 150 (ONCA) at pp 156-7. However, the appellant submits that if there is no allegation and no evidence that the named person conspired with “unknown persons”, the Crown must prove participation by at least two of the named persons. As the trial judge was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Henry or Byran were participants in the conspiracy, the appellant should have been acquitted.

[22]           In both Root and Paterson, the indictment alleged the participation of unknown persons. However, neither case stands for the proposition that such wording is required in order to find one of the named participants guilty of conspiracy.