LAWS 2302 Lecture 10: LAWS 2302: Criminal Law Lecture 10
Lecture 10 st Entrapment: 1 the authorities provide a person to commit an offence that th person is already engaged in criminal behavior 2 the police do have suspicion and go beyond providing an opportunitythe test in this 2 prong to determine that the police have gone beyond is whether a reasonable person in the same circumstance would have committed the offense. Page 614 factors the court looks into are the persistence of the police, using threats, exploiting relationships or weaknesses. Is the police conduct overboard or is there evidence that the police is hiding their illegal activity. These are in the 2 prong. Case of Mac: entrapment at work. The accused was charged with poss of narcotics with the intention of selling. Person named Mumittook was a drug addict and was an agent of the police who was working with the police. The police used him to get familiar with the accused over 6 months. The accused said he was interested and that he was only interested in real estate. The accused has refused all the times but then he kept visiting him and calling him and one time he visits him and shows him a gun and the accused felt threatened (this is a place where you can get lost). The accused finally agrees and obtains the drugs. It doesnt have to be a police officer but it can be someone the police are using as an extension of themselves to induce the criminal behavior. Policy issues: two lines of argument in this SCC case: crown argument was there is only one type of entrapment and it is a subjectiveobjective test that there was police misconduct and the accused wouldnt have done the offence but for the police conduct. The defense argues The police shouldnt engage in criminal behavior and shouldnt be testing citizens and making them do things they wouldnt normally do. The accused person bares the burden of proving the defense of entrapment beyond a reasonable doubt, which is hard to do unless there is gross police misconduct. Mr. big defense is illegal in the US and they are more lenient towards the accused where in Canada the Mr. Big defense is legal and they are more lenient to what the police can do. So if the Mr. Big defense is legal then it shows how hard it is to prove the defense of entrapment.