Kembaraxtra-Case Law- Incitement: Impossibility-Fitzmaurice (1983) CA

• Facts: X asked D to organize the robbery of a woman. X secretly intended to report a separate security van robbery occurring simultaneously to claim a reward, making the planned robbery of the woman a charade for X's purposes.
• Ruling: D was found guilty of inciting the robbery.
• Reasoning: The commission of the robbery ("robbing a woman at Bow") was not impossible at the time of the incitement, even though it ultimately became a charade due to X's ulterior motive.
• Obiter Dictum (Neill J): "…where an offence is de facto impossible, D will not be liable for incitement to commit it."

Key Concept: Impossibility in Inchoate Offenses

• Incitement: Impossibility can be a defense.
• If the incited act is "de facto impossible," there is no liability for incitement.
• Attempt: Liability is incurred for attempting the impossible.
• Statutory Conspiracy: Liability is incurred for conspiring to commit the impossible.