Regina v Moon: CACD 10 Nov 2004

The defendant, a heroin addict said that the encouragement of a police officer to supply her with a small quantity of heroin amounted to entrapment and that her prosecution should have been stayed as an abuse of process. The officer had been feigning withdrawal symptoms and distress, in circumstances where the defendant was able to say, by her evidence in a voir dire, that she had never been a supplier or a runner before or since.
Held: There was no evidence that the appellant had ever dealt or, indeed, ever supplied another addict before, a fact also supported by the appellant’s antecedents as well as by the search of her home in the subsequent January, and: ‘whether the matter is looked through the lens of the proper safeguards of authorisation, or through the lens of the appellant’s absence of predisposition or antecedents, or through the lens of the actual nature of the police activities in relation to this appellant, the conclusion to which we are driven is that this appellant was lured into crime or was entrapped, and that it was a case of causing crime rather than merely providing an opportunity for it, and ultimately that it would be unfair for the State to prosecute her for this offending. In these circumstances, the application to stay for abuse should, we think, have been accepted. ‘
Rix LJ, Poole, Evans JJ
[2004] EWCA Crim 2872
Bailii
Citing:
CitedRegina v Latif; Regina v Shahzad HL 23-Jan-1996
The defendant had been lured into the UK by the unlawful acts of customs officers. He claimed abuse of process.
Held: The category of cases in which the abuse of process principles can be applied is not closed. A customs officer committing an . .
CitedNottingham City Council v Amin QBD 2-Dec-1999
Where a plain clothes officers had invited a taxi driver to take them to a destination in breach of his licence without disclosing their identity, and he did so willingly, their evidence was not to be excluded as that of an agent provocateur. . .
CitedRegina 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 by:
CitedRegina v Moore and Another CACD 13-Feb-2013
r_mooreCACD2013
The appellants said that they had been entrapped into committing the offences of which they stood convicted. Their applications for stay on the ground of abuse of process had been rejected.
Held: The appeal failed.
Rix Lj said: ‘the . .
DistinguishedJones, Regina v CACD 29-Apr-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for incitement to produce cannabis. He had a shop openly and lawfully selling materials for use in the growing of plants, and particularly cannabis. He said that the offence had only occurred after the . .
CitedRegina v Moore and Another CACD 13-Feb-2013
r_mooreCACD2013
The appellants said that they had been entrapped into committing the offences of which they stood convicted. Their applications for stay on the ground of abuse of process had been rejected.
Held: The appeal failed.
Rix Lj said: ‘the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 February 2021; Ref: scu.416172