Which case involves an alleged conspiracy to commit an impossible act?

The case of R v Barbouttis is significant because it involves the legal concept of conspiracy to commit an impossible act. In this case, the accused were charged with conspiring to commit an act that could not physically occur, which raised important questions about the nature of conspiracy and whether individuals can be held criminally liable for agreeing to commit an act that is not possible to carry out.

This case illustrates that for a conspiracy to be founded, the objective of the conspiracy must not only be unlawful but also achievable. When the act in question is impossible, it challenges traditional views on the intent and agreement necessary to uphold conspiracy charges. The ruling emphasized that criminal liability for conspiracy involves a workable agreement toward a criminal act, and if that act cannot be performed, the basis for conspiracy dissolves.

Understanding this case highlights the complexities of criminal law, particularly in assessing the bounds and definitions of conspiracy, making it a crucial point of reference for discussions around impossible acts within legal frameworks.