R v Holliday

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAKIEFEL CJ,BELL, GAGELER, NETTLE AND GORDON JJTHE QUEEN  APPELLANTANDAARON JAMES HOLLIDAY  RESPONDENTThe Queen v Holliday[2017] HCA 356 September 2017C3/2017ORDERAppeal dismissed.On appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital TerritoryRepresentationJ White SC with M A Jones for the appellant (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT))S J Odgers SC with J T Lawton for the respondent (instructed by Gabbedy Milson Lee)Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSThe Queen v HollidayCriminal law – Incitement – Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring – Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 45, 47 – Where respondent charged with offence of incitement – Where prosecution alleged that respondent intentionally urged another person to procure third person to commit offence of kidnapping – Where offence of kidnapping not committed – Whether respondent urged commission of offence – Whether offence of incitement to procure offence exists under Criminal Code – Whether aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring commission of principal offence a discrete offence.Words and phrases – "discrete offence", "incitement", "incitement to incite", "incitement to procure", "principal offence", "substantive offence".Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), Pt 2.4.Criminal Code (Cth), s 11.4.Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 5, 7A. KIEFEL CJ, BELL AND GORDON JJ.   The appellant, the prosecution, alleged that, while in custody pending sentence for sex offences, the respondent, Mr Holliday, offered another inmate, Mr Powell, a reward for organising people outside prison to kidnap two witnesses, force them to adopt a statement prepared...