This is an extract of our Defences Entrapment document, which we sell as part of our Irish Criminal Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Trinity College Dublin students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Irish Criminal Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Entrapment Sherman v US (US SC 1958) Facts
* The plaintiff was charged with selling drugs, after an agent of the Government induced the sale, in the face of obvious reluctance on the part of the plaintiff. Issue
* Entrapment Judgment
* Warren CJ (leading)
* Entrapment occurs where criminal conduct is the product of the creative activity of agents of law enforcement - i.e. they implant the idea of and induce the commission of crime as opposed to merely providing facilities or opportunities for it.
* The defence of entrapment protects the unwary innocent but not the unwary criminal.
* In the circumstances of this case, the accused should be able to avail of the defence.
* Frankfurter J (concurring)
* The defence of entrapment is grounded in the courts' refusal to countenance the kind of behaviour exhibited by law enforcement in such a case. R v Sang (HoL 1979) Facts
* Two defendants were convicted of conspiracy to forge banknotes and of being in unlawful possession of forged notes.
* In their defence they submitted that they had committed the crime at the inducement of an agent provovateur. Issue
* Entrapment Judgment
* Lord Diplock (concurring)
* Save with regard to admissions and confession and generally with regard to evidence obtained from the accused after commission of the offence, the court has no discretion to refuse to admit relevant evidence on the grounds that it was obtained by improper or unfair means - this includes evidence obtained by means of an agent provocateur.
* Many crimes are committed at the instigation of others, the identity of the instigator is irrelevant - once the mens rea and actus reus exist, a crime has been committed.
* Viscount Dilhorne (concurring)
* Entrapment is not a defence in English law.
* Lord Salmon (concurring)
* Lord Fraser of Tullybelton (concurring)
* Lord Scarman (concurring) Dental Board v O'Callaghan (HC 1969) Facts
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Irish Criminal Law Notes.