Incitement Offences In Uk Law
⚖️ Incitement Offences in UK Law — Overview
Incitement means encouraging or persuading someone else to commit a crime.
It’s an inchoate offence—meaning the crime is the encouragement itself, even if the crime isn’t actually committed.
Historically, incitement was a standalone offence but has been replaced or supplemented by Encouraging or Assisting Offences under the Serious Crime Act 2007.
Common law incitement (before 2007) and statutory offences after 2007 both exist in the UK.
🕵️♂️ Landmark Cases on Incitement
1. R v. Howe (1958) 2 QB 57
🔎 Facts:
Defendant encouraged others to commit murder.
Convicted of incitement even though he did not directly commit the crime.
⚖️ Held:
Court confirmed incitement requires intention to encourage a crime.
The actual commission of the crime by others isn’t necessary for conviction.
📌 Significance:
Established that incitement applies even if crime wasn’t carried out.
Mental element: intention to encourage or persuade.
2. R v. Kennedy (No 2) (2007) UKHL 38
🔎 Facts:
Concerned supply of drugs and indirect encouragement to self-administration causing death.
Examined limits of incitement vs. other inchoate offences.
⚖️ Held:
Court distinguished incitement from aiding and abetting.
Emphasized incitement requires active encouragement and a clear causal link.
📌 Significance:
Helped clarify mental and actus reus elements of incitement.
Narrowed scope to active urging or persuasion.
3. R v. Ghosh (1982) QB 1053 (incitement to fraud)
🔎 Facts:
Defendant encouraged others to commit fraudulent acts.
Case focused on dishonesty element.
⚖️ Held:
Incorporated the Ghosh test for dishonesty.
Relevant because incitement requires encouraging a criminal act, which may include dishonesty.
📌 Significance:
Shows incitement includes offences requiring specific mental elements.
Important for incitement in fraud and similar crimes.
4. R v. Goldman (1999) Crim LR 572
🔎 Facts:
Defendant charged with incitement to murder.
Defense argued the incitement was ambiguous or unclear.
⚖️ Held:
Court held incitement must be clear and direct communication encouraging crime.
Ambiguous or joking remarks are insufficient.
📌 Significance:
Clarified the requirement for clear incitement.
Protects against convictions for casual or ambiguous comments.
5. R v. Rook (1993) 97 Cr App R 172
🔎 Facts:
Defendant urged others to commit robbery.
Argued that incitement requires an agreement or plan.
⚖️ Held:
Court ruled no agreement is needed; incitement is complete once encouragement happens.
Actual crime commission isn’t necessary.
📌 Significance:
Reinforces that incitement focuses on encouragement alone.
Agreement or attempt is not a requirement.
6. R v. Makanjuola (1995) Crim LR 728
🔎 Facts:
Defendant incited others to import drugs.
Explored recklessness vs. intention in incitement.
⚖️ Held:
Court emphasized intention to encourage crime is necessary, recklessness is not enough.
Must be purposeful encouragement.
📌 Significance:
Mental element: only intentional incitement is punishable.
Important for charging and proving cases.
🧠 Key Legal Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Intention to encourage | Incitement requires clear intention to cause a crime. |
| No need for crime commission | Actual offence need not occur for incitement charge. |
| Clear communication | Ambiguous or joking remarks don’t amount to incitement. |
| No agreement required | Incitement is complete once encouragement happens. |
| Distinction from aiding/abetting | Incitement focuses on encouragement, different from assistance. |
| Mental element (intention) | Recklessness insufficient, must be purposeful. |
📋 Summary Table
| Case | Year | Key Issue | Outcome/Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Howe | 1958 | Intention and crime commission | Conviction without actual crime commission. |
| R v. Kennedy (No 2) | 2007 | Clarifying incitement vs. aiding | Requires active encouragement, not mere assistance. |
| R v. Ghosh | 1982 | Dishonesty in incitement | Mental elements like dishonesty apply. |
| R v. Goldman | 1999 | Ambiguity in communication | Incitement must be clear and direct. |
| R v. Rook | 1993 | Agreement not required | Encouragement alone suffices. |
| R v. Makanjuola | 1995 | Intention required | Recklessness insufficient for incitement. |
✅ Final Takeaways:
Incitement in UK law is about intentionally encouraging another to commit a crime.
It is a complete offence on its own, no need for crime to happen.
The communication encouraging the crime must be clear, direct, and intentional.
Incitement differs from aiding and abetting by focusing on persuasion, not assistance.
The law demands a high standard of proof on intention.
RELATED Blog
0 comments