An important feature of a conspiracy charge is that it frees prosecutors from the need to prove the particular roles of conspirators. If two people plan to kill another (and this can be proven) and the victim is actually killed as a result of the actions of one of the conspirators, it is not necessary to prove precisely which the conspirator actually pulled the trigger. (Otherwise, the two conspirators might be able to handle the weapon, leave two fingerprint sentences, and then request acquittal of both, based on the fact that the prosecutor would not be able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, which of the two conspirators pulled the trigger.) A conviction for conspiracy requires proof that (a) the conspirators conspired to commit the crime and (b) the crime was committed by a person involved in the conspiracy. It is usually not necessary to prove which person it was. In summary, if conspiracy is a complex crime, the common denominator is that criminal conspiracies require agreements, the intention to get along, the intention to achieve an illegal goal, and usually at least one open act to promote the conspiracy. In general, there is no particular form that the agreement must take to justify a conspiracy. Although many laws now require an open act to prove that an agreement was made to commit a crime, a conspiracy is still largely derived from clues. Therefore, some conspirators do not even need to know the existence or identity of all other conspirators. It can be seen that two people conspired by simply entering into separate agreements with a third party.
One of the essential elements of the crime of conspiracy to commit a particular offence or offences referred to in section 1 (1) of the 1977 Act is that the accused should agree to pursue conduct which he knows must involve the commission by one or more of the parties to the agreement of that offence or offences. Section 53 should be read in conjunction with Schedule 4 of the 2007 Act. Overall, Annex 4 provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction where the accused has committed an act likely to support or promote an offence but who does not know or believe that the material offence will take place in whole or in part in England and Wales. The plot itself can be conducted in England or outside of England and Wales. With respect to Schedule 4 offences, Section 53 provides that the prior consent of the Attorney General must be obtained before proceedings are initiated. In R v Qadir and Khan  9 Archbold News 1, CA, it is stated: “The attempt begins when the accused understands the real crime, instead of taking measures rightly considered to be preparatory.” Husband and wife are not guilty of conspiracy if they are the only parties to the agreement. The same is true now for civilian partners. Under section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, a woman may conspire with her husband if, knowing that her husband has participated with others in a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act, she has agreed with him to join that conspiracy, even though the only person with whom she entered into the agreement, her husband R v Chrastny 94 Cr.App.R. .. . .