Regina 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.
Gazette 13-Oct-1993, Ind Summary 11-Oct-1993, Times 05-Oct-1993, [1994] 98 Cr App R 437
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Mulkerrins and Sansom CACD 20-Jun-1997
The defendant appealed sentences for importing 795 kgs of cocaine, with a street value of approximately pounds 125 million.
Held: There was evidence of others involved at a level even higher than the two appellants, but both appellants had . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Wood; Director of Public Prosecutions v McGillicuddy Admn 19-Jan-2006
Each defendant sought disclosure of materials concerning the intoximeter instruments, having been charged with driving with excess alcohol. The defendants said that the meters were inaccurate and that the manufacturers were in effect part of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.88058