Kembaraxtra-Case Law- Incitement: Key Principles-Case Summary: James and Ashford (1985) CA

• Facts:
• Defendant (D): Manufactured devices designed to reverse electricity meters.
• Intent: To sell these devices to a third-party retailer.
• Retailer's Role: To sell the boxes to customers.
• Customers' Role: To use the devices illegally (to reverse meters).
• Holding: D was found not guilty of incitement.

Rationale for the Holding

• Lack of Direct Incitement: The court found no evidence that D incited the "middleman" (the retailer) to use the illegal devices themselves.
• Absence of Incitement to Incite: There was also no evidence that D incited the middleman to incite the ultimate users (the customers) to commit the illegal act.

Key Takeaway on Incitement

• Incitement generally requires a more direct encouragement or persuasion towards the commission of an offense by the incited party.
• Merely supplying tools or materials for an offense, without direct incitement to commit the offense or to incite others, may not be sufficient for an incitement charge.