Did Councillors commit a conspiracy?

Statutory Conspiracy. Criminal Law Act 1977

Offence: Statutory Conspiracy. Criminal Law Act 1977
Statutory conspiracy is defined by section 1 of the criminal law act 1977

Under section 1(1) if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their
intentions, either -
(a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or
(b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible,

He is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question.

Accordingly, it is an offence to agree to commit any criminal offence even one which is tryable only summarily. However, by section 4 a conspiracy to commit a summary only offence can only be prosecuted by or with the consent of the director of public prosecutions.

A simple question to both the Investigating Authority (the Police) and the council Officers, is it not conspiracy under the Act above to scheme to make arrangements for the avoidance of money promised, I.E. a debt to the Council?

You will gather from the Rules of the Fylde Ex Service Liaison Committee that the Executive had no powers to make an undertaking with the council for payments of any kind as it had never been cleared and authorised by the Committee of the FESLC; if it had there would be minutes to verify this but readers of this blog have long since learned that Minutes are not some peoples strong points..  The officers in so doing were and had gone outside of their remit and any liability was between the person and the council, good ancient contract law, unless it was a standing arrangement and then the Council ought to have the contract that covers such an event.

So it appears that Cllr Peter Callow was correct in his actions especially as he was informed that £5.000 of supposed Charity money had been deposited in a councillors wife's private bank account "just for the time being".  The fact that the DPP(CPS) and the investigating authority(the Police) came to a conclusion that no prosecution should take place was possibly a fall-out from the massive corruption being exposed in the Daily Telegraph about our principled politicians.  Small wonder that the minnows in local government appear to have gone on their illicit, immoral and fallacious and foolproof schemes of self promotion.  It does not mean that the perpetrators are innocent of deception or fraud or a raft of other serious arrestable offences.

If we can't get them nabbed by the fuzz, perhaps we should swing the tits out of society?