When Will the Conduct of Non-State Actors Give Rise to Entrapment?: R v TL [2018] EWCA Crim 1821
| Author | Zach Leggett |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018318819316 |
| Date | 01 December 2018 |
| Published date | 01 December 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
When Will the Conduct
of Non-State Actors Give
Rise to Entrapment?
RvTL[2018] EWCA Crim 1821
In April 2017, it was alleged that the respondent (L) joined a chat room called ‘Say Hi’ via WhatsApp
and made arrangements to meet a girl he believed to have been 14. The girl in question was actually an
adult male, Mr U, who ran a vigilante group called ‘Predator Hunters’ whose aim was to find and expose
adults seeking to have sex with children.
L’s profile in the group, which was a platform where sexual encounters could be easily arranged, had
suggested ‘me and my female partner wanting a girl that’s willing to try a new experience’ indicating
that the girl should be aged 18 to 29. Mr U joined the chat under the guise of a girl named ‘Bexie’. The
registration stated the girl was born in 1999, suggesting that she was 18, however, when Bexie
approached L in the chat she stated: ‘Hiya am just your average 14-year-old girl looking to meet new
friends’. L responded by giving his age as 22 years and that his partner was a 19-year-old female before
asking Bexie if she was looking for sex and if she wanted a threesome. Bexie responded by saying ‘Hey
am 14 so I’m very inexperienced’. Discussion continued around arrangements and Bexie’s experience
where Bexie stated that she was a virgin. L then requested a picture of Bexie which was sent. It was
argued later in the trial that this picture was of someone older than 14 and therefore misleading in regards
to her age. When L asked Bexie to send him a nude photograph, Bexie said ‘I don’t send them sorry but if
I come to you then I’ll let you take some. Shall I come tomorrow after school?’. Bexie then asked ‘Does
my age not bother you’ to which L responded ‘no’. When asked if he had done it with a girl Bexie’s age,
the respondent stated ‘no’. Further discussion took place regarding the arrangements and contraception.
When the specified time arrived for the sexual encounter, Mr U, members from ‘Predator Hunters’ and
the police turned up at L’s door and he was arrested.
L was indicted in the Crown Court for a single offence of attempting to meet a child following sexual
grooming contrary to s. 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 but applied for a stay of proceedings on
the basis of an abuse of process due to entrapment. At the end of the prosecution’s case, the stay was
accepted the jury were discharged. The prosecution sought leave to appeal against this ruling pursuant to
s. 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Held, allowing the appeal, that Mr U did not induce L into committing an offence. It was observed
that L made all of the running and at no time did Mr U take a lead. Mr U did no more than provide L with
an opportunity to offend and as such, the requirements for entrapment were not satisfied. There was also
an absence of state misconduct and as such the judge erred in staying the proceedings and a new trial was
ordered.
Commentary
The role of entrapment is to prevent an abuse of process by the state and to ensure that the accused is
afforded a fair trial. As such, this has been shaped by art. 6 of the ECHR as well as statutes such as s. 78
of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which allows the court to refuse to admit evidence which
has been obtained in circumstances which would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings.
The Journal of Criminal Law
2018, Vol. 82(6) 434–437
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018318819316
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial