M, R v
On the assumed facts, the undercover officer did not use persuasion, pressure, or significant inducement; he merely presented an opportunity. Therefore, the prosecution was not an abuse of process and the judge's finding of entrapment was not justified.
- Parties
- Appellant: The Queen; Respondent: M
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 18 March 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Stay of Prosecution
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Abuse of Process, Entrapment, Controlled Drugs, Police Undercover Operations
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Queen
Appellant
M
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Stay of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution of M constituted an abuse of process due to alleged entrapment by an undercover police officer
Ratio Decidendi
On the assumed facts, the undercover officer did not use persuasion, pressure, or significant inducement; he merely presented an opportunity. Therefore, the prosecution was not an abuse of process and the judge's finding of entrapment was not justified.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- proceedings for the offence to be resumed in the Crown Court
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment