Which case established the need for an established intent when counselling an offence?

The case that established the need for an established intent when counselling an offence is indeed R v Hamilton. In this landmark decision, the court underscored the importance of the mens rea, or intent, component in the context of counselling an offence. The ruling clarified that for an individual to be guilty of counselling, there must be a shared intention between the counsellor and the principal offender — meaning the counsellor must have knowledge of the specific offence and the intent to assist in its commission.

R v Hamilton demonstrated that mere encouragement or provision of advice without the requisite intent does not satisfy the legal threshold for counselling. This reflects a broader principle in criminal law that aligns punishment with culpability. Without this established intent, individuals may be held liable for actions they did not meaningfully endorse or intend, leading to potentially unjust results.

Ultimately, the recognition of this element in R v Hamilton shaped subsequent interpretations of the offence of counselling, ensuring that a more precise standard is applied when assessing the mental state of those who may indirectly contribute to criminal activity.