Laura Hicks (a pseudonym) v Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2)

The Australian Capital Territory Court of Appeal, constituted by Baker, Taylor and Bromwich JJ, considered an application for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision concerning a demurrer to an indictment. The dispute arose from the Director of Public Prosecutions' indictment of Laura Hicks (a pseudonym) for the offence of incitement to procure, where the alleged offence incited was not carried out.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the offence of incitement to procure, when the underlying procured offence is not completed, constitutes an offence known to law in the Australian Capital Territory. This question required the Court to interpret sections 45 and 47 of the *Criminal Code 2002* (ACT) and consider whether legislative amendments had successfully overcome the precedent established in *Holliday v The Queen* [2016] ACTCA 42. The Court also considered the admissibility and relevance of extrinsic material in determining the legislative intent.

The Court reasoned that the legislative amendments to the *Criminal Code* were intended to clarify and broaden the scope of incitement offences, specifically to capture situations where the incited act does not reach completion. By examining the plain language of the relevant sections and the legislative history, the Court concluded that Parliament had indeed achieved its intended purpose of creating a cognisable offence of incitement to procure even where the procurement itself is not successful. The Court found that the appeal lacked merit.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed.