R v Shannon

Date

14 September 2000

Legislation

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.78

Keywords

evidence; criminal procedure

Counsel

Mr David Charles Etherington QC, Miss Jennifer Dempster, Mr Martin Hicks

Solicitors

Hedley Saunders & Co.; CPS; London Area Secretariat

Judge

Potter LJ (judgement), Hidden J, Judge Ann Goddard QC

Court

Court of Appeal, Criminal Division

Reported

[2001] 1 WLR 51

Summary

Agent provocateur evidence admissible and not contrary to s.78 PACE '84.

While the facts and circumstances amounting to such entrapment might be taken into account, and in an appropriate case might prove decisive, the principal focus of the judges attention had to be upon the procedural fairness of the proceedings, the nature and reliability of the prosecution evidence and the fullness and fairness of the opportunity available to the defendant to deal with the evidence which the prosecution sought to advance.

Entrapment is a key consideration for the judge but not in itself sufficient to require exclusion, without consideration of the further questions, together with any special considerations. Argument that it is unfair in principle is not sufficient unless the behaviour of police or others is such as to justify a stay on the ground of abuse of process. The court looks to see if the fairness of the proceedings as a whole is compromised. for example, If there was good reason to question the reliability of the a.p. or other evidence stemming from his actions and this could not fairly or properly be resolved in the proceedings by other untainted evidence then the judge might exclude the evidence.

Referring to the ECHR and the case of Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal Application the admissibility of evidence is one for regulation by national law. Under the Convention the court should consider fairness of the entire proceedings.

Decision

The evidence in this case fell short of establishing actual incitement or instigation of the offences.