Defendant organised a money lending scheme, getting his assistants to go and collect other families’ allowances owed to other people.
CA quashed his conviction on the basis that the assistants didn’t know that they weren’t entitled to collect the money. Therefore the assistants didn’t know that they were being incited and hence Defendant could not be said to have incited them.
However, provided Defendant believed they knew, Ashworth argues, it ought to have been a case of incitement.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.