Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
LORD JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON MR JUSTICE EADY and MR JUSTICE FOSKETT ____________________
Robert Elias (instructed by the CPS) for the Appellant Charlotte Holland (instructed by Farleys Solicitors LLP) for the Respondent Hearing date: 11 March 2011 ____________________
(1) The officer had done no more than pose an open ended question. He had not asked the respondent to commit a crime and had only given him an opportunity to commit a crime if he so chose.
(2) This was an example of the police doing no more than presenting the respondent with an opportunity to commit a crime. The police had not instigated or incited the crime.
(1) the police had breached the principle laid down by Lord Hoffmann in Loosely at paragraph 56 in which he stated that "the only proper purpose of police participation is to obtain evidence of criminal acts which they suspect someone is about to commit or in which they are already engaged. It is not to tempt people to commit crimes in order to expose their bad characters and punish them." The Judge was entitled to take the view that even if this was an authorised operation the police had caused M to commit an offence which he would not otherwise have committed.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.