Serious Crime Bill [HL]

I need to say straight away that the words were recommended by theLaw Commission, and we have followed that recommendation. Let me explain why. Amendments Nos. 94 and 97 do not seek materially to change the substance of Clauses 39 and 42 where those clauses discuss the issue of intent. For liability to arise under Clause 39, it must be proved that D intended to encourage or assist an offence. The word ““intention”” is given a particular meaning by Clauses 39(2) and 42(7), so that it should be taken to mean D’s ““purpose”” and exclude the concept of virtual certainty. That was recommended, as I say, by the Law Commission, and we have followed it because we think it is sound. ““Foreseeable””, in the context of both those clauses, can be accurately constrained and interpreted by Clauses 39(2) and 42(7). Clause 39(2) states: "““But he is not to be taken to have intended to encourage or assist the commission of an offence merely because such encouragement or assistance was a foreseeable consequence of his act””." So there is a framework that enables us to have clarity. That was the view taken by the Law Commission, and we concur.