7. Defences Involving Other People - Mistake or Entrapment Flashcards
1
When is mistake available as a defence?
“Except in the cases where proof of mens rea is unnecessary, bona fide mistake or ignorance as to matters of fact is available as a defence”
How have New Zealand courts dealt with entrapment as a defence?
Must Know
In New Zealand the courts have rejected entrapment as a defence per se, preferring instead to rely on the discretion of the trial judge to exclude evidence that would operate unfairly against the defendant.
In relation to entrapment, how is fairness assessed?
Must Know
“In assessing fairness, the court will examine the reason the defendant was targeted, and the way in which the agent was involved in the initiation of the offending activity.”
R v Liu shows that courts tend to distinguish between two different sets of circumstances. What are the distinctions?
Courts tend to distinguish between circumstances where officers have provided an opportunity to those “predisposed” to commit certain offences, and situations where officers have initiated, encouraged, or stimulated offences “by a person who would otherwise have been a non-offender in a general sense”, and who was not “in any event ready and available to commit the offence.
What did the court of appeal make clear in R v Capner?
The New Zealand Court of Appeal made it clear that, where
the police overstepped the line between proper detection and improper inducement of crime, the discretion to exclude the police officer’s evidence should be exercised.
Police v Lavelle is a leading precedent on the topic of entrapment. What were the circumstances?
- Female who answered ad, complained to police.
- Lavelle offered UC opportunities for prostitution.
- Lavelle and UC went to pub, Lavelle approached another UC.
- Lavelle and UC’s leave and lavelle arrested.
What was held in Police v Lavelle?
Must Know Case Law
It is permissible for undercover officers to merely provide the opportunity for someone who is ready and willing to offend, as long as the officers did not initiate the person’s interest or willingness to so offend.
