Serious Crime Bill [HL]

This is about someone believing that the other person will commit the offence, and that his act will encourage or assist that, but not necessarily intending that the offence should take place. His reasoning might be as follows: ““If I say this to him, I genuinely believe that the effect is that he will be encouraged. I believe that he will commit that act, but I do not then necessarily intend for the act to take place””. We have had a number of situations, particularly relating to the internet, where the individual says, ““Yes, I encouraged and I gave this information, but there is no cogent evidence to demonstrate beyond peradventure that I intended him so to do. I believed that the other person would commit the offence and I believed that the act that I committed would encourage and assist him, but you have to prove that I intended that particular act to take place””. The provision therefore captures the culpability—the mischief—and it stops people being able todo that which they believe will encourage the commission of what is quite often a serious offence without having any culpability for which they might be brought to book. That is the mischief that the Law Commission believed was not being addressed appropriately. It considered this to be a sound way of dealing with it, because the prosecution would still have to prove belief and demonstrate that the act would have encouraged or assisted. Those benchmarks would still apply. The Law Commission has captured the offence in a way that enables us to feel that it is the right and proper way forward.