LAWS101 - Entrapment

Cases from the entrapment line - LAWS101, University of Otago

Terms in this set (...)

Most relevant case now:
Stevenson v R
Cases held to be Acceptable Encouragement:
R v O'Shannessey
R v Climo
Police v Lavalle
R v Loughlin
R v Petricevich
R v Capner
R v Liu
Cases held to be Entrapment:
R v Pethig
R v Perston
Police v Rupe
Stevenson v R
R v O'Shannessey
Lives in commune - UO convinces to buy drugs.
- Held had never been involved in scene before - UO said he was in trouble = under stevenson, likely to be found more than might be expected of others
R v Climo
Created the test that if a UO has a bona fide belief that offender is "READY AND AVAILABLE", UO can provide as many opportunities as they want. NOT RELEVANT ANY MORE
Police v Lavalle
D arranged for UO to have sex with UO. Ad in paper - D said "I'm fairly used to this sort of thing".
- Held not an unexceptional opportunity, as was predisposed.
R v Loughlin
Heroin ($2500 in just over an hour). D was initially reluctant, but then said to UO "this is the start of a good thing".
- Clearly would have occured without nature and extend of police involvement - as was predisposed.
R v Pethig
Small time drug dealer - resisted, but finally agreed (flew to Auckland).
- Clearly would not have occured without police involvement.
- Clearly more than unexceptional opportunity, given SIZE OF DEAL.
- Clearly more than might be expected - given persistence when faced with reluctance
R v Perston
UO convinced D they were cousins. D was reluctant to find a supplier, but eventually set up a meeting.
- Held UO had exploited realtionship, and exploited D's financial pressure - clearly more than expected of others.
R v Rupe
Transvestite homosexual gives hand-job to UO.
- Held this was entrapment, as you shouldn't tempt vulnerable people - clearly more than expected of others.
Stevenson v R
Police re-start correspondance from account of 16 y/o girl on a sex website. Sends emails to D from her account, offering sex.
- clearly more than unexceptional opportunity -as initiated contact.
- clearly more than expected by others, as initiated contact, and targeted someone known to be predisposed.
- clearly would not have occurred if not for police involvement - as actively encouraged.
R v Petricevich
Police seized cellphone - got a txt while at police station, offering drugs. Police replied, set up deal.
- clearly not more than unexceptional opportunity- simply replied.
- clearly not more than expected of others - simply replied.
R v Capner
Similar to Perston - UO infiltrated house, had sex, pot parties etc. Asked D to procure drugs.
- clearly more than expected of others, as exploited relationship. OBITER - sexual relationship even worse.
- clearly would not have been commited without police involvement - as exploited relationship.
R v Liu
Police selling illegal paua - Shop owner wants to buy some.
- clearly not unexceptional opportunity - as not a cold call.
Cases related to unexceptional opportunity:
Pethig - size of deal, supplied means (plane, money)
Liu - clearly not, cold call
Lavalle - double ended trap = unexceptional as predisposed
stevenson - more than unexceptional, as initiated contact, knew he was predisposed.
Cases related to more than expected by others:
Pethig - persistent in face of reluctance
Perston - exploited relationship, knowingly
Rupe - exploited vulnerable person
Petricevich - no - just replied to txt.
Capner - exploited relationship (OBITER - sexual is worse)
Stevenson - initiated contact, deliberately targeted.
Cases related to would the crime occur without nature and extent of police involvement?
R v Liu - yes, cold call
R v Loughlin - yes, predisposed
Lavalle - yes, 'fairly used to this sort of thing'
Capner - no - exploited relationship
Pethig - reluctance, no experience in deal of that size before = no
Oshannessey - no, had never been involved
stevenson - no, initiated contact, active encouragement