Namoa v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the appellant, Namoa, against the decision of a lower court concerning charges of conspiracy to do acts in preparation for a terrorist act, contrary to sections 11.5(1) and 101.6(1) of the *Criminal Code* (Cth). The central dispute revolved around the applicability of the conspiracy offence under section 11.5(1) to a situation where only two spouses agreed to commit an offence against Commonwealth law, without the involvement of any other person.

The legal issues before the Court were whether section 11.5 of the *Criminal Code* applies to spouses who agree solely between themselves to commit an offence against Commonwealth law. This required the Court to determine if any common law rule, such as the doctrine of unity of spouses, historically prevented spouses alone from forming a conspiracy, and whether the terms "person" and "another person" within section 11.5, as well as the meaning of "conspires" and "conspiracy," incorporated such a common law restriction.

The Court reasoned that the statutory offence of conspiracy as defined in section 11.5(1) of the *Criminal Code* is intended to apply to spouses who agree between themselves to commit an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, even if no other person is involved. The Court found it unnecessary to consider whether the common law contained a rule preventing spouses alone from conspiring, as the statutory language was sufficiently clear. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.