M, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 648 (18 March 2011)

M, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 648 (18 March 2011)

On the assumed facts, the undercover officer did not exert pressure, persuasion, or offer significant inducement to M; merely providing an opportunity to commit the offence was not entrapment, and the prosecution was not an abuse of process.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Crim 648
Parties
Appellant: The Queen; Respondent: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Stay of Prosecution (abuse of Process/entrapment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; stay of prosecution set aside; proceedings to be resumed in the Crown Court.
Legal Topics
Entrapment, Abuse of Process, Stay of Proceedings, Undercover Police Operations
Criminal Law Entrapment Abuse of Process Stay of Proceedings Undercover Police Operations

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Appellant

M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Stay of Prosecution (abuse of Process/entrapment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution of M was an abuse of process due to entrapment by an undercover police officer

Ratio Decidendi

On the assumed facts, the undercover officer did not exert pressure, persuasion, or offer significant inducement to M; merely providing an opportunity to commit the offence was not entrapment, and the prosecution was not an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; stay of prosecution set aside; proceedings to be resumed in the Crown Court.

Orders

  • Prosecution to be resumed in the Crown Court.