incitement

Question 1

basic definition

Answer 1

Encouraging/ requesting a person to commit a crime.

Question 2

leading case

Answer 2

Baxter v HM Adv 1998 JC 219
Facts: Accused charged with inciting another man to commit murder on the basis of a conversation between them about potential methods that could be used in carrying out the killing, and the fee that could be paid for its commission. During this conversation, there was no explicit instruction to kill, so the accused claimed that he never intended that this murder would be carried out by the other man.
Held: On appeal, in order to convict someone of inciting a crime, the jury must be satisfied that the accused seriously intended that the crime be committed, but that it is not necessary that there are any specific instruction. In this case, the conversation that had happened, and the fact that the accused had motive, and had threatened the victim in the past was enough to justify his conviction.
Significance: The intention that the other person will go on to commit the crime is necessary.

Question 3

how does this offence work?

Answer 3

This form of liability exists even if the crime is never committed. No full offence is required. If the offence is committed, then it is more likely that whoever incited the crime would be charged as art and part liable for its completion, as long as all of the requirements for that are met. It is possible to charge both though.