Click here to obtain a Word version of this document for adaptation
[This charge has been written for cases in which the accused incites another person to commit an offence. The charge will need to be modified for situations where the accused incites a person to pursue a course of conduct that involves the commission of an offence by the inciter.]
Inciting a person to commit NOO is a crime. In order to find the accused guilty of incitement to commit NOO, the prosecution must prove 2 elements beyond reasonable doubt.
The first element that the prosecution must prove is that the accused incited a person to commit the offence of NOO.
The second element that the prosecution must prove is that the accused intended the offence of NOO to be committed.
Before you can find NOA guilty of incitement to commit NOO you must be satisfied that both of these elements have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. I will now explain these elements in detail.
The first element that the prosecution must prove is that the accused incited a person to commit a crime.
A person can "incite" someone to do something in a variety of ways. For example, s/he can [insert appropriate definitions, such as instruct, command, encourage, request, authorise, propose or advise] them to do it.
In this case it is alleged that NOA "incited" NO3P to commit the offence of NOO. A person commits NOO when s/he [describe and explain the relevant elements of the principal offence. See Part 7: Victorian Offences for the elements of the primary offence].
It is for you to determine whether NOA incited NO3P to commit NOO. In making this determination, you do not need to consider the effect of NOA’s conduct on NO3P. As long as NOA incited NO3P to [describe the course of conduct that would constitute the principal offence], it does not matter whether that incitement was successful or not. In this case, the prosecution alleged that NOA incited NO3P to commit NOO by [describe relevant prosecution evidence and/or arguments]. The defence disputed this, arguing [describe relevant defence evidence and/or arguments].
The second element that the prosecution must prove is that the accused intended the offence of NOO to be committed. This requires you to be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that NOA intended that NO3P [describe relevant conduct and necessary state of mind of NO3P, e.g. "intentionally kill NOV without lawful excuse" or "intentionally sexually penetrate NOV without his/her consent"].
[If there are particular facts or circumstances the accused must have believed in to commit the offence, add the following shaded section.]
You must also be satisfied that NOA intended or believed that [describe relevant facts or circumstances, e.g. "NOV would not be consenting"] at the time the offence was to be committed.
The prosecution submitted that this element has been met in this case. [Describe relevant prosecution evidence and/or arguments.] The defence responded [describe relevant defence evidence and/or arguments].
Application of Law to Evidence
[If not previously done, apply the law to the relevant evidence here.]
To summarise, before you can find NOA guilty of incitement to commit NOO, the prosecution must prove to you, beyond reasonable doubt:
One – that NOA incited NO3P to commit NOO; and
Two – that NOA intended that NOO would be committed.
If you find that either of these elements have not been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, then you must find NOA not guilty of incitement to commit NOO.
 Name of Offence
 Crimes Act 1958 s321G.
Last updated: 14 November 2008