The Queen v Holliday [2017] HCA 35

The Queen v Holliday [2017] HCA 35

There is no offence of incitement to procure under the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) because s 45 does not create a discrete offence. Incitement only attaches to urging the commission of a substantive offence, not to urging another to procure a third person to commit an offence unless and until the offence is completed.

Parties
Appellant: The Queen; Respondent: Aaron James Holliday
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal Before the High Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Incitement, Aiding and Abetting, Complicity, Criminal Responsibility, Statutory Construction
Criminal Law Incitement Aiding and Abetting Complicity Criminal Responsibility Statutory Construction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Appellant

Aaron James Holliday

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal Before the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the offence of incitement to procure exists under the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)
  2. 2 Whether Mr Holliday could be convicted of urging Mr Powell to procure a third person to kidnap each witness contrary to s 47 of the Criminal Code
  3. 3 Whether ss 45(2)(a) and 45(3) of the Criminal Code are limitation or qualifying provisions within the meaning of s 47(5)

Ratio Decidendi

There is no offence of incitement to procure under the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) because s 45 does not create a discrete offence. Incitement only attaches to urging the commission of a substantive offence, not to urging another to procure a third person to commit an offence unless and until the offence is completed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.