Regina v Shannon (Also Known As Alford): CACD 11 Oct 2000

The defendant had been enticed to commit a crime involving supply of controlled drugs by a journalist acting as an agent provocateur.
Held: Entrapment is not a defence in UK law. It was open to the judge hearing the prosecution to exclude the evidence on the grounds that it was unfair, but there was no principle which required its exclusion. When considering whether or not to exclude the evidence on the basis that the offence had been committed at the behest of an agent provocateur, the mere fact of entrapment was not of itself sufficient to justify exclusion. Before excluding such evidence the judge must consider the effect of the entrapment on the unfairness of the proceedings as a whole.


Lord Justice Potter Mr Justice Hidden And Her Honour Judge Ann Goddard QC


Times 11-Oct-2000, Gazette 19-Oct-2000, [2000] EWCA Crim 1535, [2001] 1 Cr App R 168




Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78


CitedRegina v Smurthwaite; Regina v Gill CACD 5-Oct-1993
It is not a defence merely to show that there had been entrapment or the use of an agent provocateur, but the Judge has a discretion to exclude the evidence obtained if it would be unfair to use it. The need is to ensure a fair trial. . .

Cited by:

CitedA, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Aug-2004
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85550