Serious Crime Bill [HL]

I see the logic of what the noble and learned Lord says. We look at the practical circumstances. I gave the example of the internet because quite often the defence says, ““You must demonstrate not that he had a general intent to encourage and assist the commission of offences, but that he intended the commission of this act on this day at this time””. That is always very difficult, because it could be general. You cannot say that he intended that Mr Smith should rape child X on 14 November 2006, because no evidence is capable of demonstrating that that was his intention. Therefore, he is entitled to say, ““There is no evidence that I intended this defendant to commit that particular act on that particular day””. One asks whether he believed that that would be the impact. Did what he did assist that person or encourage him so to act? You then do not have to prove that he intended the specific commission of the offence in relation to that individual. The noble and learned Lord knows that that has often been a stumbling block—general intent but not specific intent. That is why we think that the commission has come up with a sufficiently trenchant benchmark on belief. It will be quite hard for the Crown to bring forward cogent evidence to satisfy a jury. However, if those circumstances exist, it must be proper that that mischief be dealt with. I am afraid that there is now a greater degree of mischief than there has been in the past.