Entrapment: Abuse of Process
| Author | Andrew Roberts |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2006.70.3.194 |
| Published date | 01 June 2006 |
| Date | 01 June 2006 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Entrapment: Abuse of Process
Rv Moon [2004] EWCA Crim 2872
The appellant, a heroin addict, had been persuaded by an undercover
woman police officer, J, to supply her with a small amount of heroin.
There had been no authorisation under the Code of Practice concerning
undercover operations that was in force at the relevant time. The
appellant had been approached by J who asked if she could buy some
drugs from her. The appellant initially refused, but J pleaded that she
was desperate and having been approached a number of times, the
appellant supplied her with heroin to the value of £10. The appellant’s
evidence was that it had not been her intention to assist J, but she felt
sorry for her having heard from her that she had split up with her
boyfriend. She stated that she felt pressure to supply drugs to J and
would not have sold the drugs had J not been so persistent in her
requests. The appellant had one conviction for possession of cannabis
some considerable time before the offence with which she was charged
in the present case.
J’s evidence was that she had acted as a test-purchaser, her aim being
to buy drugs from persons frequenting a bus station, which was con-
sidered a problem area by the police. At the bus station she observed the
actions of the appellant within a group, which led J to believe that the
appellant was dealing in drugs. J further observed cling-film sticking out
from the appellant’s pocket which caused J to suspect that she was in
possession of drugs. The basis of J’s claim that the appellant was predis-
posed to selling drugs was her observation of the appellant passing
something to a known drug user, though she did not know what had
been passed. J conceded that she had instigated a conversation about
drugs with the appellant and that she had lied to the appellant about
being a drug addict. She accepted that she had been persistent but stated
that she had pressed the appellant no further than would the typical
addict who needed to satisfy a craving.
The trial judge had rejected the appellant’s submission that the prose-
cution ought to be stayed for abuse of process, ruling that, while it had
not been properly authorised, having regard to the totality of the cir-
cumstances, the operation was a bona fide one. Having regard to the
seriousness of the crimes of drug trafficking which the police had
reasonable grounds to suspect were being carried out in the vicinity of
the bus station, the actions of the police, and of J in particular, were
proportionate.
H
ELD
,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL
,the critical fact, which was conceded by
the Crown, was that the appellant's status at all relevant times was that
of an addict only. There was no predisposition to deal in drugs. The
Crown accepted that there was no evidence that the appellant either in
the present case or any other occasion had acted as a dealer or as a
194
To continue reading
Request your trial