Case Law Flashcards
What section of ripa governs authorisation to deploy?
29
What is 29(b) of RIPA
CCA
What is article 2 of the ECHR
Right to life (qualitative)
What is article 6 of ECHR
Right to a fair trial (absolute)
What is article 8 of ECHR?
Right to privacy and home life (qualitative)
What are 1-4 points (ALBA)
1- don’t be agent provocateur
2- offence must be laid on
3 - behaviour which is consistent and commensurate with role being performed
4- specifically authorised involvement in the operation
Which case law relates to point 1
Royal commission on police powers (1928)
Which case law relates to point 2
R V McEvilly and Lee 1973
Which case law relates to point 3
R V Loosely 2000
Which case law relates to point 4
R V Sutherland
Harmes + Cranes
What is the main point of the royal commission of police powers
A person who entices another to commit and express breach of the law and then proceeds to inform against him in respect of such an offence is an AP. (Point 1 of 1-4s)
This principle may result in a stay of proceedings
What happened in R V McEvilly and Lee 1973
‘M’ was introduced by a source to a UC ‘Jim’. ‘M’ asked ‘Jim’ if he wanted a load of booze and said that he had 1500 cases of it and Jim could decide how much he wanted, but M wanted to get rid of it in two loads.
Jim agreed to take 400 cases of scotch, 200 barcardi, 200 vodka
Following weekend a warehouse was broken in to and 25k worth of spirits were nicked
defendants tried to argue Jim was AP because at the time of the conversation no offence had been committed, offence was possible but conduct of Jim made it probable.
This was not granted - M had already determined on a course of action so offences were already laid on by the time UC was introduced to M
What are the key points of R V McEvilly and Lee
Transactions between UC and Subjectd where cases of stolen alcohol were exchanged. Application was made to exclude evidence on basis of AP.
The offence was Laid on - plan was clearly contemplated.
Courts were satisfied UCOs had not acted as AP’s
Appeal was dismissed
When was R V Loosely
2000
What are the 2 sets of circumstances for R V Loosely and attorney general ref 3/2000
1- Loosely - street level test purchase UCO Rob purchased heroin 3 times. Loosely appealed saying court should have been stayed as abuse of process or evidence should be excluded under sec 78. Court ruled actions of Uc were fine.
2- AG- UCOs used props (cigs) to trade with suspects then brought up heroin despite no intel or disposition to supply, defendent sourced heroin through another party but made clear not in to heroin himself. Ruled Agent Provacteur and proceedings stayed
What are the 4 key principles gained from R V Loosely
- Must be offered the unexceptional opportunity to commit crime
- If police have instigated commission of offences proper remedy is to stay proceesedings as an abuse of process rather than to exclude evidence
- Reasonable suspicion to breach article 8 can be a person or a place
- UCO’s do not have to act in a passive manner, court recognised certain offences mean UCO’s would need to use a degree of pursuasion to engage with subjects
What are the 11 rulings/outcomes from R V Loosely
- Entrapment is not a defence in English law
- If police instigate offences the court should stay proceedings
- Stay is most appropriate way of dealing in relation to entrapment
- There is a distinction between crime detection and crime creation
- Use of covert techniques is justified where offences are difficult to detect by non covert means
- Police must act in good faith
- Reasonable grounds for suspicion could be person or place
- Police do not have to be passive
- The greater the inducements the more likely court will conclude boundary has been crossed
- Weight of inducement will take consideration in to defendents circs and vulnerability
- Pre disposition or criminal record are not relevant factors to a stay
When was R V Harmes and Cranes
2006
What are the basic circs of R V Harmes and Cranes
Coke for coke
Officers traded soft drinks for cocaine. The value of the cocaine was significantly below the value of the drinks. Props/ tactics were not authorised. It was appealed on the basis of breaches of RIP and codes of practice
What are the key points of R V Harmes and Cranes
Court concluded officers had acted criminally by suggesting that soft drinks be paid for in cocaine and there were substantial defects in the authority and breaches of the codes on this basis
Judge rules clear breaches however not so seriously improper as to court to intervene and grant a stay. Importance of compliance with codes and authority
What happened in R V Sutherland
Police planted bugs in a police station exercise yard and recorded conversations between suspects and their solicitors. There was no authority for this, and the judge stayed proceedings for murder due to police circumventing RIPA to obtain the evidence. Officer who planted recording devices had not seen the terms of the authorisations, which had granted authority for bugs in cell corridors but not on excercise yards
What is s78 pace in relation to?
The court may refuse to allow evidence with regards to all the circs, if the admission of evidence may have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings and the court should not admit it
Evidence must be obtained fairly otherwise it may be ruled inadmissable
What are the key points of R V Birtles (1969)
Burglary where an imitation firearm was produced. It was informant led and the presence of UC whose vehicle was used to case burglary and either UC or informant supplied weapon. Court ruled there was a real possibility the defendant had been encouraged.
Key point- court must never knowingly be mislead
When was R V Bryce?
1992
What are the circs of R V Bryce
UCO purchased a stolen Saab, during the interaction the UC asks questions that breach code C (interview) that go to the heart of the matter eg how long has it been nicked
What are the key points of R V Bryce
Court of appeal ruled UCO’s must act in a manner consistent with role playing
Must be unassailable record - records
When was R V Christou and Wright?
1992
What are the circs of R v Cristou and Wright
UCO’s ran stardust jewellers. 2 X UCO’s we’re buying stolen jewellery in local area (prop shop) and an appeal was launched by defendants stating UCO’s were AP which was squashed
What was the ruling of R V Christou and Wright
The defendants voluntarily applied themselves to the trick and this is not fair. Questions asked in the course of transactions are not questions requiring a caution and are reasonable for those portraying the role of a fence
