R. v. Loosely, (2001) 280 N.R. 229 (HL)

• Case Date: October 25, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 280 N.R. 229 (HL)

R. v. Loosely (2001), 280 N.R. 229 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Regina v. Loosely (appellant) Attorney General's Reference Number 3 of 2000

([2001] UKHL 53)

Indexed As: R. v. Loosely

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton, and Lord Scott of Foscote

October 25, 2001.

Summary:

In these two appeals issues were raised regarding the law of entrapment in England and whether the law needed to be modified to comply with the fair trial provisions of and rulings under the European Convention of Human Rights.

The House of Lords reviewed the English law of entrapment and held that it required no modifications at this time.

Criminal Law - Topic 205

General principles - Common law defences - Entrapment - Agents provocateur - The House of Lords reviewed the English law regarding entrap­ment, noting that in Eng­land entrapment is not a substantive de­fence, but the law has developed rem­edies for entrapment, such as a stay of proceed­ings or exclusion of evidence - The court reviewed when a stay of proceedings could be granted - The court also held that the English law of entrapment was compat­ible with fair trial provisions of the Euro­pean Convention of Human Rights.

Cases Noticed:

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Marshall, [1988] 3 All E.R. 683 (D.C.), refd to. [paras. 3, 55].

Nottingham City Council v. Amin, [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1071, refd to. [paras. 3, 51, 99, 121].

Sherman v. United States (1957), 356 U.S. 369, refd to. [paras. 6, 37].

R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; 90 N.R. 173; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 513, refd to. [paras. 6, 39].

Ridgeway v. R. (1995), 184 C.L.R. 19 (H.C.), refd to. [paras. 6, 38, 100].

Police v. Lavalle, [1979] 1 N.Z.L.R. 45, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Sang, [1980] A.C. 402 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 7, 38, 98, 119].

Brannan v. Peek, [1948] 1 K.B. 68 (D.C.), refd to. [paras. 7, 38].

R. v. Birtles, [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1047, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. McEvilly (Michael James); R. v. Lee (Peter John) (1973), 60 Cr. App. R. 150 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Mealey and Sheridan (1974), 60 Cr. App. R. 59, refd to. [paras. 7, 55].

R. v. Foulder, Foulkes and John, [1973] Crim. L.R. 45, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Burnett and Lee, [1973] Crim. L.R. 748, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Ameer and Lucas, [1977] Crim. L.R. 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. McCann (Edward) (1971), 56 Cr. App. R. 359 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Smurthwaite; R. v. Gill, [1994] 1 All E.R. 898; [1994] Crim. L.R. 53 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 12, 55].

R. v. Chalkley, [1998] 2 Cr. App. Rep. 79, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Shannon, [2001] 1 W.L.R. 51, refd to. [paras. 12, 42, 103].

R. v. Bennett, [1994] 1 A.C. 42; 155 N.R. 372 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 13, 40, 121].

Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecu­tions, [1964] A.C. 1254 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Latif, [1996] 1 W.L.R. 104, refd to. [paras. 14, 36, 98, 121].

Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal (1998), 28 E.H.R.R. 101, refd to. [paras. 15, 46, 88, 123].

Hampton v. United States (1976), 425 U.S. 484, refd to. [para. 22].

United States v. Russell (1973), 411 U.S. 423, refd to. [paras. 37, 102].

Browning v. Watson (J.W.H.) (Rochester) Ltd., [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1172, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Amato, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 418; 42 N.R. 487; 69 C.C.C.(2d) 31, refd to. [para. 39].

Ealing London Borough Council v. Wool­worths plc, [1998] Crim. L.R. 58 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Williams v. Director of Public Prosecu­tions (1994), 98 Cr. App. R. 209, refd to. [para. 65].

Lüdi v. Switzerland (1992), 15 E.H.R.R. 173, refd to. [para. 72].

Sorrells v. United States (1932), 287 U.S. 435 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 102].

Brown v. Stott, [2000] N.R. Uned. 256; [2001] 2 W.L.R. 817 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Khan (Sultan), [1997] A.C. 558, refd to. [para. 122].

Khan v. United Kingdom (2000), 8 B.H.R.C. 310, refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Keane (Stephen John) (1994), 99 Cr. App. R. 1, refd to. [para. 125].

Statutes Noticed:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act (U.K.), 1984, sect. 78 [para. 30 et seq].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Choo, Andrew, Abuse of Process and Judicial Stays of Criminal Proceedings (1993), pp. 164 to 166 [para. 42].

United Kingdom, Law Reform Commis­sion, Report, Criminal Law Report on Defences of General Application (1977), No. 83, pp. 32 to 53 [para. 38].

Royal Commission Report, Police Powers and Procedure (1929), Cmd. 3297 [para. 49].

Undercover Operations Code of Practice, generally [para. 61].

Counsel:

Patrick O'Connor, Q.C., and M. Couzens, for the appellants;

David Perry and Paul Dobson, for the respondents.

Agents:

Castle Partnership, for the appellants;

Crown Prosecution Service, for the respon­dents.

This case was heard on June, 25, 26 and 27, 2001, before Lord Nicholls of Birken­head, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton, and Lord Scott of Foscote of the House of Lords. The decision of the House was given on October 25, 2001, when the following speeches were delivered:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead - see para­graphs 1 to 32;

Lord Mackay of Clashfern - see para­graphs 33 to 34;

Lord Hoffmann - see paragraphs 35 to 81;

Lord Hutton - see paragraphs 82 to 117;

Lord Scott of Foscote - see paragraphs 118 to 128.