- Published on
KembaraXtra – Case Law: Rowley (1992) CA
Facts
The defendant (D) left notes in public places offering incentives to young boys with the intention of attracting them for immoral purposes. However, the contents of the notes were not themselves indecent and merely sought to arrange contact with potential recipients. D was subsequently convicted of attempting to incite a child under the age of 14 to commit an act of gross indecency.
Issue
Whether the act of leaving notes in public places constituted an attempt to incite a child to commit an act of gross indecency, or whether the conduct was merely preparatory in nature.
Decision
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and overturned the conviction.
Reasoning
The court held that the notes did not go beyond seeking to arrange a preliminary meeting with the boys. No direct proposition or encouragement to commit an act of gross indecency was communicated by D. As such, the conduct amounted only to preparatory acts and did not constitute an attempt to incite the offence.
The court distinguished this situation from one where a defendant sends a letter expressly encouraging a child to engage in an act of gross indecency, but the letter fails to reach its intended recipient. In such circumstances, the defendant would have done everything within his power to communicate the incitement, thereby potentially satisfying the requirements of attempted incitement.
Legal Principle
For liability for attempted incitement to arise, the accused must have gone beyond mere preparation and taken acts that amount to a direct attempt to communicate the incitement. Conduct that merely facilitates the possibility of future contact or discussions, without conveying the unlawful proposition itself, remains insufficient to constitute an attempt.
Facts
The defendant (D) left notes in public places offering incentives to young boys with the intention of attracting them for immoral purposes. However, the contents of the notes were not themselves indecent and merely sought to arrange contact with potential recipients. D was subsequently convicted of attempting to incite a child under the age of 14 to commit an act of gross indecency.
Issue
Whether the act of leaving notes in public places constituted an attempt to incite a child to commit an act of gross indecency, or whether the conduct was merely preparatory in nature.
Decision
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and overturned the conviction.
Reasoning
The court held that the notes did not go beyond seeking to arrange a preliminary meeting with the boys. No direct proposition or encouragement to commit an act of gross indecency was communicated by D. As such, the conduct amounted only to preparatory acts and did not constitute an attempt to incite the offence.
The court distinguished this situation from one where a defendant sends a letter expressly encouraging a child to engage in an act of gross indecency, but the letter fails to reach its intended recipient. In such circumstances, the defendant would have done everything within his power to communicate the incitement, thereby potentially satisfying the requirements of attempted incitement.
Legal Principle
For liability for attempted incitement to arise, the accused must have gone beyond mere preparation and taken acts that amount to a direct attempt to communicate the incitement. Conduct that merely facilitates the possibility of future contact or discussions, without conveying the unlawful proposition itself, remains insufficient to constitute an attempt.
0 Comments