Three defendants appealed against convictions for selling stolen goods, saying that the police had used entrapment. The officers had established a shop at which thieves might expect to sell goods. Each defendant had pleaed guilty after a ruling against their allegation of abuse by officers. They said that officers had failed to comply with the requirements of the 2000 Act.
Held: The applications for leave to appeal were rejected. The remaining failures in disclosure had no effect. The balance of the appeal faced findings by the judge as to the effectiveness and proportionality of the operation. The actions alleged against the officers fell short of encouragement, and the judge having seen recordings of the events concluded that the appellants only vulnerability exploited was their greed.
Hallett LJ VP CACD, Andrew Smith J, Zeidman QC HHJ
 EWCA Crim 1681
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 26
England and Wales
Cited – Teixeira De Castro v Portugal ECHR 9-Jun-1998
Mr De Castro had been the target of an unwarranted, unauthorised, unsupervised police operation in which undercover officers incited him to supply drugs. He challenged a conviction for trafficking in heroin, based mainly on statements of two police . .
Cited – Regina v Looseley (orse Loosely); Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2000 HL 25-Oct-2001
Police Entrapment is no defence to Criminal Act
The defendant complained of his conviction for supplying controlled drugs, saying that the undercover police officer had requested him to make the supply.
Held: It was an abuse of process for the police to go so far as to incite a crime.
Cited – Regina v Harmes and Another CACD 9-May-2006
The appellant Harmes ran a public house and was suspected of involvement in the distribution of Class A drugs and money laundering. An undercover police operation was launched and approved which lasted approximately 3 months. One of the undercover . .
Cited – Regina v Christou; Regina v Wright CACD 8-Jul-1992
Evidence which had been obtained by a police trick (false shop) was admissible. It’s use was not unfair. Lord Taylor CJ said that the defendants ‘voluntarily applied themselves to the trick’.
When assessing impact the court should assume that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535651