Yip Chiu-Cheung v R [1995] 1 AC 111

Conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs involves an agreement between individuals to engage in illegal drug trafficking. In Hong Kong, such activities are severely penalized, targeting those involved in planning or facilitating the crime, even if they don't directly traffic the drugs.

Hong Kong law strictly prohibits the export of drugs without proper authorization. Violating these export rules, particularly under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, leads to serious consequences, including imprisonment and fines.

A justifiable motive refers to a legitimate reason that may explain certain actions in a criminal case. However, in drug-related offences, it is difficult to establish, as trafficking is typically treated as a strict liability crime.

An agent co-conspirator is someone who acts on behalf of another in a criminal conspiracy, such as drug trafficking. They can be held criminally liable even if they don’t directly benefit from the crime.

Conspiracy with an agent involves a principal collaborating with an agent to carry out illegal activities. Both parties can be charged with conspiracy if they knowingly participate in the criminal plan.

Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Laws of Hong Kong, 1992 Revision, Chapter 134), Sections 2(1), 4(1): This ordinance defines dangerous drugs and prohibits their trafficking. Violations of these provisions are met with harsh penalties to curb the illegal drug trade in Hong Kong.

Yip Chiu-Cheung (“Defendant”) was arrested in Hong Kong and charged with conspiracy to traffic a dangerous drug, contrary to common law and section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

According to section 2 of the Ordinance, "export" included taking a dangerous drug out of Hong Kong by air, and "trafficking" included exporting the drug from Hong Kong.

The prosecution's case was based on an American undercover drug enforcement agent who had met the defendant and another individual, H., in Thailand.

It was arranged that the agent would fly to Hong Kong, where the Defendant would supply him with heroin to be taken by plane to Australia.

The agent testified that he had intended to carry out the plan but missed the pre-arranged flight to Hong Kong and did not proceed further. He also revealed that his objective was to break a drug ring and that he had informed both the Hong Kong and Australian authorities. The authorities had agreed not to prevent him from exporting the heroin.

During the trial, the judge instructed the jury that if they believed the agent’s testimony, they could convict the Defendant of conspiracy with H., and if they were certain that the agent intended to export the heroin, the agent could be considered a co-conspirator.

The Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to traffic a dangerous drug. However, no separate verdicts were given regarding the conspiracies between H. and the agent.

The Defendant appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong, arguing that he lacked the necessary mens rea and could not be a co-conspirator in law. The Crown conceded that if the agent was not considered a conspirator, the conviction based on conspiracy with H. could not stand, as the jury might have based their verdict solely on the conspiracy with the agent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the agent was capable of being a conspirator.

The Defendant then appealed to the Judicial Committee.

The court dismissed the appeal and held that an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, with the intent to carry it out, constituted a conspiracy. 

In this case, the appellant had conspired to traffic heroin from Hong Kong without a license, in breach of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. His claim of intending to arrest drug dealers did not excuse the illegal act.

The trial judge had properly directed the jury, who were entitled to find the appellant guilty of conspiracy based on the evidence. The conviction was upheld.

This case exemplifies the issues between the law of conspiracy and the involvement of undercover agents. The court upheld Yip Chiu-Cheung's conviction for conspiracy to traffic a dangerous drug despite the agent's intention to disrupt the drug trade rather than facilitate it. The key issue was whether the undercover agent, who acted with the goal of dismantling a drug ring, could still be a co-conspirator.

The court found that an agreement to commit an unlawful act, combined with the intent to carry it out, constitutes a conspiracy. In this case, even though the agent's ultimate purpose was to arrest drug dealers, his involvement in the conspiracy to trafficking heroin was enough to uphold the conviction. This decision reaffirms the principle that intent to carry out an illegal act is sufficient for conspiracy, regardless of any ulterior motives. The court also emphasized that the defendant’s mens rea was present, as he willingly participated in the plan to traffic heroin.

Thus, the ruling confirms that participation in illegal acts cannot be excused by claiming greater good, and the conviction was rightly upheld.