NCJ Number
31599
Journal
Australian Police Journal Volume: 29 Issue: 4 Dated: (OCTOBER 1975) Pages: 281-287
Date Published
1975
Length
7 pages
Annotation
DISCUSSION OF ENGLISH, NEW ZEALAND, AND AUSTRALIAN CASE LAW REGARDING ENTRAPMENT IN RELATION TO UNDERCOVER POLICE ACTIVITY AND ITS EFFECT ON EVIDENCE ADMISSIBILITY AND SENTENCING.
Abstract
THE CONSENSUS HAS BEEN THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSE OF ENTRAPMENT SIMILAR TO THAT EXISTING IN THE UNITED STATES. IN ADDITION, THERE IS A VALID DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE UNDERCOVER CONSTABLE WHO MERELY AFFORDS THE OPPORTUNITY TO A PERSON TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE IF HE WAS SO MINDED AND THE AGENT WHO INCITES, ENCOURAGES, BEGUILES OR SEDUCES AN OTHERWISE UNWILLING ACCUSED TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE. CONDUCT OF THE FIRST TYPE WILL BE ACCEPTED BY THE COURTS, BUT EVIDENCE OF ACTIVITY WHICH CROSSES THE LINE AND AMOUNTS TO CONDUCT OF THE SECOND TYPE WILL, IN ALL PROBABILITY, BE EXCLUDED BY THE COURT. GUIDELINES IN THIS AREA FOR UNDERCOVER POLICE OFFICERS ARE INCLUDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)