Entrapment

Abuse of process may happen in entrapment situations

Entrapment - involves agents of state luring people to commit offences or instigating crime

NOT A DEFENCE IN LAW

If D can show entrapment court may stay proceedings as an abuse of process - S78 PACE

Whether or not police lae enforcement methods were part of bona fide investigation as opposed to being a means of 'preying on the weakness of human nature to create crime for improper purpose'

DPP V MARSHALL [1988]

Principle: may not be regarded as entrapment for officers to make test purchase to see if trader is selling alcohol illegally

NOTTINGHAM CC V AMIN [2000]

Facts: taxi driver driving outside licenced area - stopped & hired 2 police men in plain clothing

Held: officers did not act as agents - admission of ev would not prejudice trial - no ev of A being pressured into picking up officers

KHAN V UK (2000)

Facts: listening device unlawfully applied to D's house

Held: did not render trial unfair under article 6 ECHR

HARMES & CRANE [2006]

Facts: H & C appealed against judge decision - not to stay prceedings - conspiracy to supply cocaine - claimed they had been entrapped by undercover officers - supplied accused with soft drinks in return for cocaine - H boasted about ability to import large amounts of cocaine in bulk

Held: police committed crim acts - was not seriously improper to stay proceedings

LOOSELY [2001]

HL laid down principles governing ev obtained by entrapment

(a) where D shows entrapment, court must stay proceedings or exclude ev under S78 PACE

(b) grant of stay should be the first appropriate response - to prosecute would affront public conscience

(c) decision to stay proceedings distinct from decision on forensic fairness of admitting ev

(d) must consider whether police did no more than present D with opportunity to commit crime

(e) must consider whether police conduct was so improper to bring administration of justice to dispute

• nature of offence
• reason for police operation
• extent of police participation in crime
• D's crim record

MOON [2004]

Facts: police undercover - involving test purchase of drugs

Held: entrapment - conviction quashed - caused M to commit offence rather than provide her with opportunity

'reasonable grounds for suspicion'

RAMANAUSKAS [2008]

Facts: R was prosecutor - acting only on rumours about R's bribes - AZ asked him to secure acquittal - he agreed

Held: entrapment - no ev that R would commit offence

M [2011]

'operation nimrod'

Tabloid press style & private parties

SHANNON [2007]

Facts: involved 'sting' set ups - news journalists - posing as wealthy Arabs - appellant unaware drug meet up was recorded

Held: ev should have been excluded under s78 PACE

It would be wrong for officers to operate undercover for conducting interviews & seeking admissions

Admissions claimed to have been made byone prisoner to another during joint detention

PRINGLE V R [2003]

Principle: trial judges should be vigilent

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000