Ken hates Mike who has been having an affair with his wife Deidre. Is he guilty of any offences in the following situations? (a) Over a pint in the pub one lunchtime he says to Frank the barman that he wishes that Mike were dead. (b)He posts a letter to Frank offering him £1000 to kill Mike. Consider the position if: i. the letter never arrives. ii. Frank receives the letter but refuses the offer. iii. Frank agrees to shoot Mike at his clothing factory that evening. In fact he shoots a tailor's dummy believing it to be Mike. (a) Ken is not guilty of an offence. English law does not criminalise thoughts, and even committed choices to do wrong are not themselves criminal (Walen, "The Doctrine of Illicit Intentions" 2006). Ken wishing Mike was dead does not amount to any criminal defence. (b) (i) D1: Ken Offence 1: Encouraging / Assisting Crime Ken may be guilty of encouraging or assisting crime under the Serious Crime Act (SCA) 2007. s.44 Firstly, Ken may be liable under s44. The actus reus (AR) of s.44 is doing an act that is capable of encouraging / assisting the commission of an offence (s.44(1)(a)). The mens rea (MR) is intention to do the act and intention to encourage / assist the commission of the offence (s.44(1)(b)). Ken is attempting to persuade Frank to commit murder by offering a financial incentive, fulfilling the definition of encouraging. Under the old offence of Incitement, DPP v Armstrong (2000) highlights the likelihood of the reference offender committing the crime is irrelevant so long as the inchoate offender's act was capable of encouraging the offence. Applying this the modern law of encouraging / assisting, offering payment to commit a crime is an act capable of encouraging an offence, even if the letter never arrived. Ken fulfils the AR requirements. On the facts and the high sum of £1000, it is clear that Ken intended to encourage / assist in the commission of Mike's murder, fulfilling the MR requirements. Ken is guilty under s.44 of encouraging / assisting crime. (ii) Exact same applies, just because Frank refuses it was still capable of encouraging him and the intent was the same. (iii) D1 and D2: Ken and Frank
Offence 1: Conspiracy to murder Ken may be liable for Conspiracy to murder Mike under s.1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The AR is an agreement between two or more people, which, if carried out in accordance with their intentions, will result in the commission of a crime by at least one party to the agreement (s.1(1)(a)). The MR is intention of the parties to carry out their agreement, and intention / knowledge that facts or circumstances necessary for the offence will exist at the time of the offence (s.1(2) CLA 1977). Ken and Frank agreed to shoot Mike, an unconditional agreement to murder him. The agreement to murder is intrinsically criminal; there is no lawful way to shoot someone so the