Serious Crime Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 94: 94: Clause 39 , page 25, line 11, leave out ““foreseeable”” and insert ““reasonable”” The noble Lord said: I will speak also to Amendment No. 97. These amendments simply replace the word ““foreseeable””, in Clause 39(2) and Clause 42(7), with ““reasonable””. As I mentioned, both clauses form a part of the Bill that deals with inchoate offences. Clause 39 creates a new offence of, "““intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence””," while Clause 42 sets out what needs to be proved to establish guilt in the offence in Clause 39 as well as those in Clauses 40 and 41. The Bill establishes that the foresight of consequences is not sufficient to establish intention. I recognise that the use of ““foresee”” was on this occasion suggested in the Law Commission’s draft Bill in the report that I referred to earlier. The aim of the amendments is to question whether the use of the word ““foresee”” is appropriate when there is currently considerable debate in legal circles on the subjectivity or objectivity of the word. To whom, for example, is the consequence ““foreseeable””? Is it the person who is considered to have encouraged or assisted the commission of the offence, for example the bartender looking on, or the policeman investigating? ““Reasonable””, as I made clear on Amendment No. 100, is well recognised in law, and in this case it might be more appropriate. I beg to move.