In Canada, the offence of conspiracy to commit murderconspiracy commit murder Canada) occurs when two or more people agree to kill another person or to have that person killed. Under the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system this is coded as UCR Code 1220. It is always treated as a serious indictable offence, even if the murder never happens and even if no physical steps are taken beyond the agreement itself. The law focuses on the danger created by the agreement and shared intention to kill, not on whether the plot is carried out.
The Legal Definition
“Every one who conspires with any one to commit murder or to cause another person to be murdered, whether in Canada or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a maximum term of imprisonment for life.”
– Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s. 465(1)(a)
This definition from section 465(1)(a) of the Criminal Code makes two key points: first, that a person is guilty when they conspire with any one to commit murder; and second, that the conspiracy can relate to a killing anywhere in the world, “whether in Canada or not.” The offence is complete once there is a genuine agreement to kill, combined with the intent that the murder actually occur.
In plain English, this means you do not have to carry out the killing—or even attempt it—to face a charge of conspiracy to commit murder. What matters is that two or more people have reached a real agreement to cause someone’s death. Casual talk, joking, or angry outbursts generally will not be enough. Prosecutors must show that the parties meant what they said and intended to move forward with a plan to murder. Because this offence is treated as an indictable crime with a possible life sentence, courts carefully analyze whether there was a true “meeting of the minds” to commit murder.
Penalties & Sentencing Framework
- Type of offence: Indictable only (no summary option).
- Mandatory minimum penalty: None.
- Maximum penalty: Life imprisonment.
- Other possible consequences: lengthy periods of parole ineligibility, strict probation conditions if a non-custodial component is imposed, firearms and weapons prohibitions, DNA orders, and long-term supervisory orders in some cases.
Although there is no mandatory minimum sentence set out in section 465(1)(a), the availability of life imprisonment signals that conspiracy to commit murder is among the most serious offences in Canadian criminal law. Because it is an indictable-only offence, the accused has the procedural protections that come with serious charges, including the right to elect mode of trial (such as by judge and jury in Superior Court) and full preliminary inquiry rights where available under current procedural rules.
In sentencing, courts consider many factors: the nature and sophistication of the murder plan, whether weapons or accomplices were involved, whether the intended victim was particularly vulnerable, and whether the conspiracy was interrupted at an early or late stage. Even though the conspiracy focuses on the agreement, judges often look at any steps taken to move the plan forward, such as acquiring weapons, conducting surveillance, or recruiting others. The further along the planning process an accused has gone, the closer the sentence may approach those imposed for attempted murder or even completed homicide.
Mitigating factors can also play a role. These might include a very early withdrawal from the conspiracy, cooperation with police, genuine remorse, lack of a prior criminal record, or evidence that one conspirator was pressured or manipulated by another. Nonetheless, because the object of the agreement is the intentional killing of a human being, Canadian sentencing courts consistently treat conspiracy to commit murder as a crime that demands strong denunciation and deterrence, often resulting in substantial penitentiary terms.
Common Defenses
-
Lack of agreement or intent to commit murder
A core requirement for conspiracy is a true agreement (the actus reus) combined with the intention to bring about the crime (the mens rea). A common defence is to show that there was no genuine agreement to kill, or that the accused did not share the required intent. For example, if the discussions were hypothetical, sarcastic, or clearly in jest, the Crown may fail to prove that the parties actually agreed to go through with a murder. Similarly, if one person merely went along with the conversation to placate or gather information on someone else, but did not personally intend that a killing occur, the mental element of conspiracy is missing. Defence counsel will closely examine text messages, recorded conversations, and witness testimony to argue that any apparent “agreement” was ambiguous, incomplete, or lacked the serious intention required by section 465(1)(a).
-
No overt acts or steps taken beyond mere discussion
Under Canadian law, a conspiracy charge does not technically require proof that the conspirators took concrete steps to carry out the murder; the offence is complete once a real agreement is reached. However, in practical terms, the absence of any overt acts can be a powerful defence argument. If nothing at all was done beyond loose or angry talk—no weapons obtained, no victim identified, no plan for time, place, or method—the defence can argue that there was, at most, an emotional conversation rather than a criminal pact. Courts often look to surrounding conduct as evidence that the parties genuinely intended to implement the plan. When there are no steps consistent with planning, it becomes easier to argue that the Crown has not proven the existence of a true conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
Charter rights violations in investigation or proof (s. 7, s. 11, and related rights)
Investigations into alleged conspiracies to commit murder frequently involve wiretaps, undercover operations, informants, and lengthy surveillance. This creates significant potential for Charter of Rights and Freedoms issues. For example, section 7 protects the right to life, liberty, and security of the person in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, while section 11 guarantees rights in criminal proceedings, such as the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. If the police conduct wiretaps without proper judicial authorization, improperly handle confidential informants, delay the proceedings unreasonably, or otherwise infringe Charter rights, the defence may apply to exclude key evidence under section 24(2). If crucial recordings, statements, or surveillance results are excluded, the Crown may be unable to prove that a conspiracy ever existed. In extreme cases of serious, state-caused prejudice, a remedy could even include a stay of proceedings, though that is rare and reserved for the clearest Charter breaches.
Real-World Example
Imagine two individuals, Alex and Jordan, discussing a detailed plan to murder a business rival. They agree on the method and timing, though their plot is uncovered before any action takes place. Both could face charges of conspiracy to commit murder. In this scenario, even though the rival is never harmed and Alex and Jordan never obtain a weapon, police could rely on recorded messages, emails, or witness testimony showing that they seriously agreed on how and when to kill the rival. Prosecutors would not need to prove an attempted murder—only that there was a real agreement and shared intent to have the rival killed. The court would look at whether the conversations sounded like genuine planning rather than venting, whether any preparatory steps were taken, and whether either person tried to withdraw from the plan. If convicted, Alex and Jordan could each face a lengthy penitentiary sentence, reflecting the gravity with which Canadian law treats a conspiracy to end someone’s life.
Record Suspensions (Pardons)
Eligibility for a record suspension for conspiracy to commit murder depends on several factors, including the completion of all parts of the sentence (custodial time, probation, fines, and surcharges) and the serious nature of this indictable offence. Because the maximum penalty is life imprisonment and the offence is closely tied to homicide, the waiting period will be long and the Parole Board of Canada will subject applications to strict scrutiny. Individuals must remain crime-free for the entire waiting period and demonstrate rehabilitation. While the Criminal Records Act sets general waiting periods after completion of sentence for indictable offences, in practice, an applicant with a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder will face a high threshold in showing that they no longer pose a risk to public safety and that granting a suspension would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The exact eligibility outcome can vary with legislative changes and individual circumstances, so current legal advice and up-to-date information from the Parole Board are essential.
Related Violations
- Attempt to Commit Murder
- Manslaughter
- Criminal Negligence Causing Death