Where the prosecution alleges a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involving specific improper means (threats, intimidation), it must prove the accused agreed to those means, not merely that the accused agreed to the unlawful end (procuring a false statement). An agreement to pressure a witness by threats or intimidation is substantially different from an agreement merely to procure a false statement, and a conviction cannot be upheld on the latter basis where the former was alleged. Knowledge or suspicion that a co-conspirator may be using threats is insufficient; the prosecution must prove the accused agreed that threats or intimidation would be used.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.