R. v. Mack, (1988) 90 N.R. 173 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 15, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1988), 90 N.R. 173 (SCC);44 CCC (3d) 513;JE 89-117;90 NR 173;6 WCB (2d) 80;1988 CanLII 24 (SCC);37 CRR 277;[1989] 1 WWR 577;67 CR (3d) 1;[1988] 2 SCR 903;[1988] SCJ No 91 (QL)

R. v. Mack (1988), 90 N.R. 173 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Norman Lee Mack v. Her Majesty the Queen

(19747)

Indexed As: R. v. Mack

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ.

December, 15, 1988.

Summary:

The accused British Columbia resident had five drug offence convictions, the last in 1979, but he stated that he had given up drugs for yoga. An Ontario acquaintance of the accused on police orders began to persuade the accused to acquire cocaine for a syndicate. For six months the accused refused to participate, but the acquaintance and his associates became threatening and the apprehensive accused finally agreed to cooperate. He was charged with possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking. He applied for a stay of proceedings on the ground of entrapment. The British Columbia County Court in a judgment reported 34 C.R.(3d) 228 dismissed the application and convicted the accused. The accused appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 49 C.R.(3d) 169 dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and entered a stay of proceedings on the ground of abuse of process by entrapment. The court explained and defined entrapment and explained the procedure for its application, including the burden of proof. The court held that the police instigated the crime and that the accused would not have done it but for the unacceptable police-inspired conduct of persistence and threats in persuading the accused to commit the offence.

Courts - Topic 103

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - English and American authorities - American decisions - The Supreme Court of Canada in discussing entrapment cautiously considered the extensive American authorities and academic discussions on the topic - See paragraphs 17, 18, 36 to 68.

Criminal Law - Topic 205

General principles - Defences - Common law - Entrapment - The accused British Columbia resident had five drug offence convictions, the last being in 1979, but he stated that he had given up drugs for yoga - An Ontario acquaintance of the accused on police orders began to persuade the accused to acquire cocaine for a syndicate - For six months the accused refused to participate, but the acquaintance and his associates became threatening and the apprehensive accused finally agreed to cooperate - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a charge of possession for the purposes of trafficking against the accused should be stayed for abuse of process by entrapment - The court found that the police instigated the crime and that the accused would not have done it but for the unacceptable police-inspired conduct of persistence and threats in persuading the accused to commit the offence.

Criminal Law - Topic 205

General principles - Defences - Common law - Entrapment - Nature of entrapment - Burden of proof - The Supreme Court of Canada in entering a stay of a criminal charge for abuse of process by entrapment discussed and explained the nature of the defence of entrapment and the procedure for dealing with it - The court held that entrapment was not a substantive defence, but was an aspect of abuse of process and led to a stay of proceedings, not acquittal - Entrapment was a question of mixed law and fact and was for the trial judge, not the jury, to determine within its inherent power to control abuse of process - The basis of the defence is not the culpability of the accused and entrapment does not provide a justification or an excuse: the accused committed the crime, but the court denies its processes to the Crown where police conduct will bring the administration of justice into disrepute - Hence, unacceptable police conduct is the basis of the defence and the predisposition of the accused to crime is irrelevant - The court held that there is entrapment when (a) the authorities provide a person an opportunity to commit an offence without acting on a reasonable suspicion that the person is already engaged in criminal activity or pursuant to a bona fide inquiry or (b) although having such a reasonable suspicion or acting in the course of a bona fide inquiry, they go beyond providing an opportunity and induce the commission of an offence - The burden of proof is on the accused to show entrapment on a balance of the probabilities, a burden which is not inconsistent with the burden of proof on the Crown, because guilt is not an issue; a stay should be granted only in the clearest of cases, so the raising of a mere reasonable doubt by the accused would not be enough.

Criminal Law - Topic 253

General principles - Abuse of process - What constitutes - The Supreme Court of Canada held that entrapment was an aspect of abuse of process and could be remedied by the court by a stay of proceedings - Entrapment is treated under CRIMINAL LAW - TOPIC 205.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Amato, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 418; 42 N.R. 487, consd. [paras. 4, 16, 19, 98, 130].

R. v. Jewitt (1983), 34 C.R.(3d) 193, revd. on other grounds [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159, consd. [paras. 31, 130, 145].

R. v. Showman (1988), 90 N.R. 262 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 9].

R. v. Kirzner, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 487; 18 N.R. 400, consd. [paras. 15, 17, 131, 143].

Sorrells v. United States (1932), 287 U.S. 435, consd. [para. 18].

Sherman v. United States (1958), 356 U.S. 369, consd. [paras. 38-68].

United States v. Russell (1973), 411 U.S. 423, consd. [paras. 38-68].

Hampton v. United States (1976), 425 U.S. 484, consd. [paras. 38-68].

United States v. Bueno (1971), 447 F. 2d 903 (5th Cir.), refd to. [para. 54].

Greene v. United States (1971), 454 F. 2d 783 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 54].

Russell v. United States (1972), 459 F. 2d 671 (9th Cir.), consd. [para. 56].

Mathews v. United States (1988), 108 S. Ct. 883, consd. [para. 66].

Connelly v. D.P.P., [1964] 2 All E.R. 401 (H.L.), consd. [para. 70].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 36 M.V.R. 240; 69 B.C.L.R. 145; 18 C.R.R. 30, appld. [para. 71].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, consd. [paras. 72, 138].

Lemieux v. R., [1967] S.C.R. 492, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Perka, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 81].

R. v. Bergstrom, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 539; 36 N.R. 451; 9 Man.R.(2d) 1, consd. [para. 86].

R. v. Sharp, [1987] 3 All E.R. 103 (C.C.A.), consd. [para. 94].

R. v. Howe, [1987] 1 All E.R. 771 (H.L.), consd. [para. 94].

R. v. Fitzpatrick, [1977] N.I. 20 (N.I.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 94].

R. v. Baxter, [1983] C.A. 412; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 555, not folld. [para. 131].

R. v. Gingras (1987), 61 C.R.(3d) 361, not folld. [para. 134].

R. v. Dionne (1987), 79 N.B.R.(2d) 297; 201 A.P.R. 297; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 171 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 135].

R. v. Misra (1986), 51 Sask.R. 123; 32 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), appld. [para. 136].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C. (3d) 481; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; 32 M.V.R. 153, appld. [para. 138].

R. v. Ashoona (1988), 41 C.C.C.(3d) 255, folld. [para. 141].

R. v. Biddulph (1987), 47 Man.R.(2d) 289; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 544, consd. [para. 142].

R. v. Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657; 83 N.R. 296; 65 Sask.R. 122, appld. [para. 145].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 69]; sect. 11(f) [para. 139]; sect. 14 [para. 69]; sect. 24(2) [para. 145].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 7(3) [para. 25]; sect. 17 [paras. 86, 89, 94]; sect. 605 [para. 32].

Authors and Works Noticed:

American Law Institute, Model Penal Code (1962), s. 2.13 [para. 68].

Brown Commission Final Report, s. 702 (2) [para. 68].

Colvin, Eric, Principles of Criminal Law (1986), pp. 166 [para. 90]; 232 [para. 91].

Commentaries (1985), pp. 405-420 [para. 68].

Donnelly, R., Judicial Control of Informants, Spies, Stool Pigeons and Agent Provocateurs (1951), 60 Yale L.J. 1091, 1091-1092 [para. 17].

Fletcher, George, Rethinking Criminal Law (1978), pp. 804-805 [para. 84].

France, Problems in the Definition of Entrapment (1988), 22 U.B.C. L. Rev. 1, 12 [para. 101].

Park, R., The Entrapment Controversy (1976), 60 Minn. L. Rev. 163, pp. 241-242 [para. 92]; 270-271 [para. 115].

Rossum, R., The Entrapment Defence and the Teaching of Political Responsibility: The Supreme Court as Republican Schoolmaster, [1978] American J. Crim. Law 287 [para. 67].

Counsel:

Sidney B. Simons and J. Douglas Jevning, for the appellant accused;

S. David Frankel and Patricia A. Babcock, for the respondent Crown.

Solicitors of Record:

Sydney B. Simons, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

Frank Iacobucci, Q.C., Ottawa, Ontario, for the Crown.

This case was heard on December 10, 1987, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 15, 1988, Lamer, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada in both official languages.

Estey and Le Dain, JJ., did not participate in the judgment.