Entrapment Case Law In The Uk
🔹 What is Entrapment?
Entrapment occurs when law enforcement officers or agents induce or encourage a person to commit a crime they would not otherwise have committed. The issue is not whether the crime occurred, but whether it was unfairly procured by state conduct.
In the UK, entrapment is not a substantive defence (i.e. it does not automatically result in acquittal), but it may lead to the exclusion of evidence or even staying of proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process under:
Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) – courts may exclude evidence if its admission would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings.
Common law abuse of process jurisdiction – courts may stay proceedings that would offend justice or integrity of the legal system.
🔹 Key Principles in UK Entrapment Law
Proactive policing is allowed, but excessive persuasion or coercion may be unlawful.
State involvement is central—entrapment only applies where agents of the state induce the offence.
Courts examine whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime or was merely responding to police pressure.
A court may respond by:
Excluding evidence (PACE s.78)
Staying the prosecution (abuse of process)
🔹 Landmark Entrapment Cases in UK Law
1. R v. Looseley [2001] UKHL 53
Facts:
An undercover police officer posed as a drug user and persuaded Looseley to sell him heroin. The defence claimed entrapment.
Held:
The House of Lords held that while proactive policing is acceptable, law enforcement must not go so far as to induce a person to commit an offence they would not otherwise commit.
Lord Nicholls' Guidance:
The court may stay proceedings if they are an abuse of process.
Alternatively, exclude evidence under Section 78 PACE.
Significance:
This is the leading modern case. It defined entrapment as potentially rendering a trial unfair and offered clear remedies.
2. R v. Latif [1996] 1 WLR 104
Facts:
The defendant was prosecuted for drug offences, but it emerged that foreign authorities may have been involved in instigating the transaction.
Held:
The House of Lords held that courts may stay proceedings where the conduct of law enforcement is so seriously improper that it offends the court's sense of justice.
Significance:
Confirmed that entrapment could justify a stay of prosecution, even if the accused was technically guilty.
3. R v. Shannon [2001] EWCA Crim 1723
Facts:
Shannon was persuaded by a journalist (posing as a criminal) to buy a gun. The journalist passed evidence to the police.
Held:
The Court of Appeal ruled that since the entrapment was by a private citizen, not a state agent, the defence of entrapment was not available.
Significance:
Clarified that entrapment only applies where state agents are involved in inducing the crime.
4. R v. Moon [2004] EWCA Crim 3010
Facts:
Moon was involved in a paedophile sting operation. He argued he had been entrapped by an undercover police officer posing online as a child.
Held:
The Court of Appeal held that online sting operations were not necessarily entrapment, especially where the suspect readily volunteered to commit the offence.
Significance:
Confirmed that predisposition to offend is crucial. If a defendant shows intent independently, it's unlikely to be entrapment.
5. R v. Nottingham Justices, ex parte Bennett [1994] 98 Cr App R 331
Facts:
Police arranged for an informant to persuade Bennett to supply drugs. Bennett claimed entrapment.
Held:
The Divisional Court held that a stay of proceedings could be justified where police conduct induced the crime, not just detected it.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle that inducement rather than mere opportunity is the key issue in entrapment.
6. R v. Christou [1992] QB 979
Facts:
Police ran a fake jewellery shop to catch burglars trying to sell stolen goods. Christou and others were caught this way and claimed entrapment.
Held:
The court rejected the entrapment claim, noting the police had not induced the theft or dishonesty—just provided a chance to sell the goods.
Significance:
Established that providing an opportunity is lawful; entrapment arises only when the police cross the line into encouragement or persuasion.
7. R v. Sang [1980] AC 402
Facts:
Sang was convicted on the basis of evidence obtained through an informant. He claimed entrapment.
Held:
The House of Lords held that entrapment is not a substantive defence, but courts have discretion to exclude unfairly obtained evidence.
Significance:
One of the earliest and most influential entrapment cases, still cited for the principle that entrapment doesn't negate guilt but may bar conviction.
🔹 Summary Table of Entrapment Case Law
| Case | Key Point | Remedy Available |
|---|---|---|
| R v. Looseley (2001) | Leading case; defined entrapment; abuse of process possible | Stay or exclude evidence |
| R v. Latif (1996) | Improper official conduct may justify staying prosecution | Stay of proceedings |
| R v. Shannon (2001) | Entrapment must involve state agents, not private actors | No entrapment defence |
| R v. Moon (2004) | Online sting not entrapment if defendant shows intent | Conviction upheld |
| R v. Bennett (1994) | Inducement by police may justify a stay | Stay of prosecution |
| R v. Christou (1992) | Opportunity ≠ entrapment; police shop sting lawful | Conviction upheld |
| R v. Sang (1980) | Entrapment not a defence, but court can exclude evidence | Evidence may be excluded |
🔹 Key Takeaways
UK law does not recognise entrapment as a defence that leads to acquittal.
However, abuse of process and PACE s.78 provide remedies when police conduct goes too far.
Encouraging a crime vs. merely providing the opportunity is a crucial distinction.
Courts give more weight to predisposition of the defendant—if a person was ready and willing to commit the offence, entrapment will not succeed.
Entrapment claims must be supported by clear evidence of state misconduct, not merely aggressive policing.
RELATED Blog
0 comments