Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
!
CONTROLLED!DELIVERY!AND!ENTRAPMENT!VIS1À1VIS!THE!RIGHT!TO!A!FAIR!TRIAL!IN!
DRUG!TRAFFICKING!!OFFENCES!
!
!
!
!Janice!Borg!
!
!
Thesis!submitted!in!partial!fulfilment!of!the!degree!of!Doctor!of!Laws!(LL.D.)!
!
!!
Faculty!of!Laws!!
University!of!Malta!!
May!2015!
University of Malta Library – Electronic Thesis & Dissertations (ETD) Repository
The copyright of this thesis/dissertation belongs to the author. The author’s rights in respect of this
work are as defined by the Copyright Act (Chapter 415) of the Laws of Malta or as modified by any
successive legislation.
Users may access this full-text thesis/dissertation and can make use of the information contained in
accordance with the Copyright Act provided that the author must be properly acknowledged.
Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the prior permission of the
copyright holder.
! 2!
Declaration!of!Authorship!!
!I,! Janice' Borg,! declare! that! this! thesis! entitled! Controlled' Delivery' and'
Entrapment'vis7à7vis'the'Right'to'a'Fair'Trial' in'Drug'Trafficking'Offences!
and!the!work!presented!in!it!are!my!own.!!
I!confirm!that:!!
• The!word!count!of!the!thesis!is!34,!011!words.!!
• This! work! was! done! in! partial! fulfilment! for! the! degree! of!Doctor' of'
Laws'at!the!Faculty!of!Laws!of!the!University!of!Malta.!!
• Where!any!part!of!this!thesis!has!previously!been!submitted!for!a!degree!
or!any!other!qualifications!at!this!University!or!any!other!institution,!this!
has!been!clearly!stated.!!
• Where! I! have! consulted! the! published! work! of! others,! this! is! always!
clearly!attributed.!!
• Where! I! have! quoted! from! the! work! of! others,! the! source! is! always!
given.!With! the!exception!of! such!quotations,! this! thesis! is! entirely!my!
own!work.!!
• I! have! acknowledged! all! sources! used! for! the! purpose! of! this! work.!I!
have!not!commissioned!this!work,!whether!in!whole!or!in!part,!to!a!third!
party!and!that!this!work!is!my!own.!!
• I!have!read!the!University!of!Malta’s!guidelines!on!plagiarism.!!
!
Signed:! !
Date:!15th!May,!2015!
!
! 3!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
To#the#burdened#families#2#of#drug#users#who#turned#into##
abusers,#some#of#whom#became#traffickers#–##
who#still#offer#their#support##
notwithstanding#daily#promises##
that#all#this#will#end…#
tomorrow.#
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! 4!
TABLE!OF!CONTENTS!
!
Declaration!of!Authorship!..................................................................................................!1!
TABLE!OF!CONTENTS!...........................................................................................................!4!
TABLE!OF!LEGISLATION!...................................................................................................!11!
TABLE!OF!JUDGMENTS!.....................................................................................................!12!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS!.....................................................................................................!17!
ABBREVIATIONS!.................................................................................................................!18!
ABSTRACT!.............................................................................................................................!19!
INTRODUCTION!..................................................................................................................!20!
Pro1active!Policing!......................................................................................................................!21!
Aim!and!Methodology!................................................................................................................!21!
Division!of!Chapters!....................................................................................................................!22!
Fairness!...........................................................................................................................................!27!
Chapter!1!:!CONTROLLED!DELIVERY!AS!A!SPECIAL!INVESTIGTIVE!
TECHNIQUE!..........................................................................................................................!29!
1.1.!Introduction!..........................................................................................................................!29!
1.1.1.! Necessity!Is!the!Mother!of!Invention!................................................................................!29!
1.2.!Description!of!the!Controlled!Delivery!Procedure!...................................................!29!
1.3.!Controlled!Delivery!Procedure!.......................................................................................!31!
1.3.1.!When!No!Suspect!Is!Identified!.................................................................................................!31!
1.3.1.1.!Repubblika!ta’!Malta!vs!Simon!Xuereb!.............................................................................!31!
1.3.2.!When!Having!A!Suspect!In!Mind!.............................................................................................!33!
! 5!
1.3.2.1.Repubblika!ta’!Malta!vs!Henry!Grogan!et!.........................................................................!33!
1.4.!A!Controlled!Dealing!Following!Predisposition!of!the!Suspect!............................!34!
1.4.1.!Pulizija!(Spettur!Dennis!Theuma)!vs!Rosario!Brincat!...................................................!34!
1.4.3.!Requirement!of!Consent!From!the!Magistrate!.................................................................!35!
1.4.3.1.!Repubblika!ta’!Malta!vs!Andre’!Falzon!.............................................................................!35!
1.5.!Is!the!Authorization!From!the!Magistrate!A!Mere!Formality?!..............................!36!
1.5.1.!No!Authorization!For!Controlled!Delivery!Was!Obtained,!Yet!It!Was!Still!
Considered!As!Being!One!.......................................................................................................................!37!
1.5.1.1.!Pulizija!Spettur!Neil!Harrison!vs!Ronald!Psaila!...........................................................!37!
1.6.!Undercover!Agents!vs!Agent'Provocateur!...................................................................!39!
1.6.1.!Role!Of!An!Undercover!Agent!..................................................................................................!39!
1.6.1.1.!Undercover!Police!Officers!_!How!Far!Can!They!Go?!.................................................!40!
1.6.2.!Agent!Provocateur!........................................................................................................................!41!
1.6.2.1.!Is!An!Agent#Provocateur#Allowed!To!Be!Used!In!A!Controlled!Delivery!In!
Malta?!.............................................................................................................................................................!41!
1.6.2.2.!The!Position!In!Malta!On!Agents#Provocateurs!.............................................................!42!
1.6.2.3.!Tempted!or!Forced?!.................................................................................................................!42!
1.6.3.!The!Position!On!Agents#Provocateurs#In!Other!Jurisdictions!......................................!43!
1.6.3.1.!United!Kingdom!.........................................................................................................................!43!
1.6.3.2.!Italy!..................................................................................................................................................!43!
1.6.3.3.!Conclusion!....................................................................................................................................!44!
1.7.!When!Does!A!Controlled!Delivery!Fails!.......................................................................!44!
1.8.!Conclusion!..............................................................................................................................!45!
Chapter!2!:!WHAT!LEADS!TO!ENTRAPMENT!IN!CONTROLLED!
OPERATIONS?!WHAT!SHOULD!AN!ALLEGATION!OF!ENTRAPMENT!LEAD!
TO?!IS!IT!A!DEFENCE?!........................................................................................................!47!
2.1.!Introduction!..........................................................................................................................!47!
2.2.!Definition!................................................................................................................................!47!
! 6!
2.3.!Investigation!is!not!entrapment!.....................................................................................!48!
2.4.!‘Causing’!Crime!.....................................................................................................................!48!
2.5.!The!Plea!Of!Entrapment!....................................................................................................!49!
2.6.!Entrapment!As!A!Defence!Mechanism!..........................................................................!49!
2.6.1.!The!American!Position!................................................................................................................!50!
2.6.1.1.!The!Subjective!Approach!.......................................................................................................!50!
2.6.1.1.1.!Predisposition!...................................................................................................................!50!
2.6.1.1.2.!A!Defendant!Focused!Approach!................................................................................!52!
2.6.1.2.!The!Objective!Approach!.........................................................................................................!52!
2.6.1.3.!Majority!View!Prevails!............................................................................................................!53!
2.7.!The!Position!In!Canada!......................................................................................................!54!
2.8.!The!Position!In!The!UK!......................................................................................................!55!
2.8.1.!Improperly!Obtained!Evidence!...............................................................................................!55!
2.8.1.1.!Article!6!ECHR!on!the!admissibility!of!evidence!..........................................................!56!
2.8.2.!Two!Approaches!as!a!remedy!for!entrapment!under!English!and!Common!
Law!...................................................................................................................................................................!57!
2.8.2.1.!Staying!proceedings!.................................................................................................................!58!
2.8.2.1.1.!Why!is!a!Stay!of!proceedings!preferred?!...............................................................!58!
2.8.2.1.2.!The!disadvantages!of!a!stay!.........................................................................................!59!
2.8.2.2.!Exclusion!of!Evidence!Under!Section!78!of!PACE!.......................................................!59!
2.9.!Non1Recognition!Of!Defence!Of!Entrapment!In!The!UK!..........................................!60!
2.10.!The!leading!case!on!entrapment!in!the!UK!:!R!vs!Loosely!!and!Attorney1
General’s!Reference!No!3!of!2000!..........................................................................................!61!
2.10.1.!The!Extent!Of!Police!Participation!......................................................................................!63!
2.10.2.!Persistence!or!ordinary!temptations?!...............................................................................!64!
2.10.3.!‘Unwary#Innocent’!vs!‘Unwary#Criminal’#and#!Shifting!Opportunity!......................!65!
2.11.!Maltese!position!................................................................................................................!66!
2.12.!Exercise!Of!Discretion!In!Sentencing!..........................................................................!67!
! 7!
2.12.1.!Pulizija!(Spettur!John!Mifsud)!vs!Emmanuel!Vella!et!.................................................!68!
2.13.!Criminal!Responsibility!..................................................................................................!69!
2.14.!Conclusion!...........................................................................................................................!69!
Chapter!!3!!:!!THE!RIGHT!TO!A!FAIR!TRIAL!UNDER!ARTICLE!6!OF!THE!ECHR!
WITH!SPRECIAL!REFERENCE!TO!THE!GENERAL!PRINCIPLES!ESTABLISHED!
BY!THE!EUROPEAN!COURT!OF!HUMAN!RIGHTS!ON!ENTRAPMENT!AND!ITS!
MAIN!JUDGMENTS!..............................................................................................................!72!
3.1.!The!Criminal!Limb!Of!The!Right!To!A!Fair!Trial!........................................................!72!
3.2.!Presumption!Of!Innocence!–!Article!6!§!2!...................................................................!73!
3.2.1!The!Privilege!Against!Self_Incrimination!.............................................................................!73!
3.3.!Minimum!Guarantees!.........................................................................................................!74!
3.3.1.!The!Right!To!Have!Adequate!Time!And!Facilities!_!Article!6!§!3!(b)!.......................!74!
3.3.1.1.!The!Principle!Of!Equality!Of!Arms!.....................................................................................!74!
3.3.1.2!The!Principle!Of!Adversarial!Proceedings!.......................................................................!75!
3.3.2.!The!Right!To!Defend!Oneself!And!To!Have!The!Assistance!Of!Counsel!–!
Article!6!§!3!(c)!And!The!Right!To!Cross_Examine!Prosecution!Witnesses!–!Article!
6!§!3!(d)!..........................................................................................................................................................!75!
3.3.2.1.!Absent!And!Anonymous!Witnesses!–!Confrontation!.................................................!76!
3.4.!Conclusion!On!Minimum!Guarantees!...........................................................................!77!
3.5.!Additional!Safeguards!........................................................................................................!77!
3.5.1.!The!Giving!Of!Reasons!.................................................................................................................!77!
3.5.2.!Have!A!Conviction!And!Sentence!Reviewed!By!A!Higher!Court!................................!78!
3.6.!The!Use!Of!Special!Investigative!Techniques!.............................................................!78!
3.7.!How!And!When!Is!A!Human!Rights!Application!Deemed!To!Be!Admissible!
To!Be!Heard!Before!The!European!Court!of!Human!Rights?!.........................................!78!
3.8.!The!Main!Judgments!Which!Are!Cited!In!Later!Judgments!....................................!80!
3.8.1.%Lüdi%vs%Switzerland!......................................................................................................................!81!
! 8!
3.8.2.!Teixeira!de!Castro!vs!Portugal!.................................................................................................!83!
Chapter!4!:!GENERAL!PRINCIPLES!ESTABLISHED!BY!THE!EUROPEAN!
COURT!OF!HUMAN!RIGHTS!WITH!REGARDS!TO!THE!APPLICABILITY!OF!
ARTICLE!6!TO!PRE1TRIAL!PROCEEDINGS!AS!FOLLOWED!BY!LOCAL!AND!
STRASBOURG!!CASE1LAW!................................................................................................!87!
4.1.!Article!6!Implications!.........................................................................................................!87!
4.2.!General!Principles!Established!By!The!European!Court!of!Human!Rights!......!88!
4.2.1.!Did!The!Agent!Have!An!“Essentially#Passive”#Behavior?!...............................................!88!
4.2.2.!Was!There!Any!Compulsion,!Pressure,!Coercion,!Instigation!Or!Incitement?!....!89!
4.2.3.!Did!The!Agents!‘Join’!The!Criminal!Activity!Or!Did!They!‘Create’!It?!......................!90!
4.2.4.!The!Manner!In!Which!The!Operation!Was!Carried!Out!................................................!90!
4.2.5.!The!Rights!Of!The!Defence!........................................................................................................!91!
4.3.!Judicial!Review!Of!The!Plea!Of!Entrapment!................................................................!91!
4.4.!Is!The!General!Right!Safeguarded!Under!Article!6!Applicable!To!Pre1Trial!
Proceedings?!.................................................................................................................................!93!
4.4.1.!Alan!Muscat!vs!Avukat!Ġenerali!..............................................................................................!93!
4.4.1.1.!Conclusions!Of!The!Court!.......................................................................................................!95!
4.4.1.2.!Commentary!On!The!Judgment!Of!Alan!Muscat!vs!AG!..............................................!96!
4.4.2.!Henry!Grogan!u!Luke!Muscat!vs!Avukat!Ġenerali!...........................................................!98!
4.5.!When!does!Article!6!start!to!apply?!...............................................................................!99!
4.5.1.!Upon!investigation?!......................................................................................................................!99!
4.5.2.!At!The!End!Of!The!Criminal!Action?!...................................................................................!100!
4.5.2.1.!From!‘Charge’!To!‘Determination’!....................................................................................!100!
4.5.3.!Conclusion!.....................................................................................................................................!102!
4.6.!Human!Rights!–!Procedural!Implications!.................................................................!102!
4.7.!Analogical!Reference!To!The!Right!Of!Legal!Assistance?!....................................!103!
! 9!
Chapter!!5!!:!!AN!ANALYSIS!OF!THE!GENERAL!PRINCIPLES!ESTABLISHED!IN!
THE!EUROPEAN!COURT!OF!HUMAN!RIGHTS!CASE1LAW!WHEN!
DETERMINING!VIOLATION!OR!OTHERWISE!OF!ARTICLE!6!OF!THE!
CONVENTION!ONCE!AN!ENTRAPMENT!PLEA!IS!RAISED!......................................!105!
5.1.!Procedure!Followed!By!The!European!Court!of!Human!Rights!Upon!
Raising!An!Allegation!Of!Breach!Of!Article!6!Due!To!Entrapment!...........................!105!
5.2.!A!Classic!Case!When!Incitement!Leads!To!A!Breach!Of!The!Rights!
Guaranteed!Under!Article!6!ECHR!......................................................................................!107!
5.2.1.!Furcht!v!Germany!.......................................................................................................................!108!
5.3.!Anonymous!Witnesses!And!Non1Disclosure!Of!Evidence!That!May!
Compromise!The!Right!To!A!Fair!Trial!..............................................................................!108!
5.3.1.!Edwards!and!Lewis!vs!the!United!Kingdom!...................................................................!109!
5.4.!Unfair!Conviction!Due!To!Inducement,!Non1Disclosure!And!Lack!Of!
Reasonable!Suspicion!..............................................................................................................!111!
5.4.1.!Malininas!vs!Lithuania!.............................................................................................................!111!
5.4.1.1.!Dissenting!Opinion!.................................................................................................................!113!
5.5.!Violation!Of!Article!6!When!The!Domestic!Courts!Do!Not!Scrutinize!The!
Plea!Of!Entrapment!When!Raised!By!The!Accused!.......................................................!114!
5.5.1.!Khudobin!Vs!Russia!...................................................................................................................!114!
5.5.2.!Veselov!and!Others!vs!Russia!................................................................................................!115!
5.5.3.!Lagutin!and!Others!vs!Russia!................................................................................................!117!
5.5.3.1.!Concurring!Opinion!................................................................................................................!120!
5.6.!Where!No!Entrapment!Occurred!Because!The!Undercover!Agent!Merely!
Joined!In!An!On1Going!Activity!.............................................................................................!121!
5.6.1.!Sequeira!vs!Portugal!.................................................................................................................!121!
5.7.!No!Violation!Of!The!Right!To!A!Fair!Trial!Because!The!Plea!Of!Entrapment!
Was!Properly!Assessed!By!The!Domestic!Courts!...........................................................!122!
! 10!
5.7.1.!Bannikova!vs!Russia!..................................................................................................................!122!
5.8.!Conclusion!...........................................................................................................................!123!
CONCLUSION!......................................................................................................................!125!
A!Few!Final!Considerations!...................................................................................................!125!
Ethical!Behaviour!.....................................................................................................................!126!
The!Risks!Arising!From!The!Use!Of!Informants!.............................................................!126!
Entrapment!.................................................................................................................................!128!
Right!To!Silence!And!The!Privilege!Not!To!Incriminate!Oneself!..............................!129!
Effective!Remedy?!.....................................................................................................................!130!
Following!The!Rule!Of!Law!....................................................................................................!131!
Closing!Remarks!.......................................................................................................................!133!
BIBLIOGRAPHY!.................................................................................................................!134!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! 11!
TABLE!OF!LEGISLATION!
!
Maltese!Legislation!!
• Criminal!Code,!Cap.!9!of!the!Laws!of!Malta!
• Dangerous!Drugs!Ordinance,!Cap.!101!of!the!Laws!of!Malta!!
• European!Convention!Act,!Cap.!319!of!the!Laws!of!Malta!
• Medical!Kindred!and!Professions!Ordinance!,!Cap.!31!of!the!Laws!of!
Malta!!
!
Council!of!Europe!
• European!Convention!on!Human!Rights!
!
UK!Legislation!
• Police!and!Criminal!Evidence!Act!of!1984!
!
Russian!Law!
• Operational!Search!Activities!Act!of!5!July!1995!
!
Other!International!Instruments!
• Committee!of!Ministers’!Recommendation!Rec(2005)10!!
• Global!Commission!on!Drug!Policy!2011!
!
! 12!
TABLE!OF!JUDGMENTS!
Maltese!Judgments!!!
• Adrian# Busietta# vs# Avukat# Ġenerali,! Constitutional! Court,! 13th! March!
2006,!29/2003/1!
• Alan# Muscat# vs# Avukat# Ġenerali,! First! Hall! of! the! Civil! Court!
(Constitutional!Jurisdiction),!18th!October!2013,!45/2013!
• Charles# Steven#Muscat# vs# Avukat# Ġenerali,! First! Hall! of! the! Civil! Court!
(Constitutional!Jurisdiction),!10th!October!2011,!75/2010!
• Darren#Aquilina#vs#Onorevoli#Prim#Ministru#et,!Constitutional!Court,!31st!
May!2013,!72/2011/1!
• David# sive# David# Norbert# Schembri# vs# Avukat# Ġenerali,! Constitutional!
Court,!25th!March!2011,!48/2008/1!
• Emmanuel#sive#Leli#Camilleri#vs#il2Kummissarju#tal2Pulizija,!Constitutional!
Court,!20th!December!2000!
• Henry# Grogan# u# Luke#Muscat# vs# Avukat# Ġenerali,#First! Hall! of! the! Civil!
Court!(Constitutional!Jurisdiction),!80/2012!(pending)#
• Morgan# Ehi# Egbomon# vs# Avukat# Ġenerali,! Constitutional! Court,! 16th!
March!2011,!21/2009/1!
• Pulizija#(Spettur#Victor#Aquilina)#vs#Alvin#Privitera,!Constitutional!Court,!
11th!April!2011,!20/2009/1!
• Pulizija# vs# Emmanuel# Vella# et,! Court! of! Criminal! Appeal,! 29th! January!
1987!
• Pulizija#vs#Grazju#Spiteri,!Court!of!Magistrates,!8th!March!1984,!!
• Pulizija# vs# Dr.# Melvyn# Mifsud,! Constitutional! Court,! 26th! April! 2013,!
17/2011/1!
• Pulizija#(Spettur#Neil#Harrison)#vs#Ronald#Psaila,!Court!of!Criminal!Appeal!
(Inferior!Jurisdiction),!!8th!January!2002,!187/2001!
• Pulizija# (Spettur# Dennis# Theuma)# vs# Rosario# Brincat,! Court! of!
Magistrates,!22nd!March!2014,!22/2003!
• Repubbika#ta’#Malta#vs#Andre’#Falzon,!Criminal!Court,!10th!October!2012,!
13/2009!
! 13!
• Repubblika# ta’# Malta# vs# Carmel# Camilleri,! Constitutional! Court,! 22nd!
February!2013,!31/2011/1!
• Repubblika#ta’#Malta#vs#Eugenio#sive#Genio#Gaffarena,!19th!January!1996,!
Court!of!Criminal!Appeal!(not!reported)!
• Repubblika#ta’#Malta#vs#Gregory#Robert#Eyre#et,! Constitutional! Court! 1st!
April!2005,!14/2004/1!
• Repubblika! ta’! Malta! vs! Henry! Grogan! et,! Criminal! Court,! 7/2012!
(pending)!
• Repubblika# ta’# Malta# vs# Matthew# John# Migneco,! First! Hall! of! the! Civil!
Court!(Constitutional!Jurisdiction),!15th!November!2011,!42/2011!
• Repubblika#ta’#Malta#vs#Simon#Xuereb,!Criminal!Court,!5th! January!2004,!
15/2003!
• Ronald# Agius# vs# Avukat# Ġenerali,! Constitutional! Court! ,30th! November!
2001,!18/2001/1!
• Sandro# Chetcuti# et# vs# Avukat# Ġenerali,! First! Hall! of! the! Civil! Court!
(Constitutional!Jurisdiction),!28th!January!2005,!8/2003/1!
• Vella#vs#Bannister,#Constitutional!Court,!7th!March!1994#
• Victor# Lanzon# vs# Kummissarju# tal2Pulizija,! Constitutional! Court,! 29th!
November!2014!
European!Court!of!Human!Rights!Judgments!
• Aleksander#Zaichenko#vs#Russia,#no.!39660/02#
• Aleksay#Vladimirovich#Ivanstov#vs#Russia!(dec),!no.!10192/09!
• Asch#vs#Austria,!26!Apr!1991,!Series!A!no.!203,!(1993)!15!EHRR!597!
• Bannikova#vs#Russia,!no.!18757/06,!ECHR!2011_II!
• Birutis# and#Others# vs# Lithuania,! nos! 47698/99! and! 48115/99,! 28! Mar!
2002!
• Burak#Hun#vs#Turkey,#no.!17570/04,!ECHR!2010_I#
• Calabro#vs#Italy,!(dec)no.!59895/00!
• Constantin#and#Stoian#vs#Romania,#nos.!23782/06!and!46629/06,!ECHR!
2010_I#
• Delcourt!vs!Belgium,!Series!A!no.11,!p.15!–!ECHR!1970_I!
! 14!
• Edwards# and# Lewis# vs# the# United# Kingdom,! (GC),! nos.! 39647/98! and!
40461/98,!ECHR!2004_X!
• Escoubet#vs#Belgium,!no.!26780/95,!(1999)!
• Foti#and#Others#vs#Italy,#nos.!7604/76,!7719/76,!7781/77!and!7913/77#
• Furcht#vs#Germany,!no.!54648/09,!ECHR!2014_X!
• Imbrioscia#vs#Switzerland,#no.!13972/88#
• Jasper#vs#the#United#Kingdom,!no.!27052/05,!ECHR!2000_II!
• Khan#vs#the#United#Kingdom!no.35394/97!
• Khudobin#vs#Russia,#no.!59696/00,!ECHR!2007_I#
• Lüdi!vs!Switzerland,!no.!12433/86,!ECHR!1992_VI!• Malininas#vs#Lithuania,!no.!10071/04,!ECHR!2008_X!
• Pareniuc#vs#the#Republic#of#Moldova,#no.!17953/08,!ECHR!2014_X#
• Pisano#vs#Italy,!no.!36732/97,!27!July!2000!(2000)!34!EHRR!27!
• Ramanauskas#vs#Lithuania!(GC)!no.!77420/01!
• Salduz#vs#Turkey(GC),!no.!36391/02,!ECHR!2008_XI!
• Shannon#vs#the#United#Kingdom,#(dec)!no.!67537/01#
• Teixeira#de#Castro#vs#Portugal,!no:!44/1997/828/1034,!ECHR!1998_VI!
• Van#Mechelen#and#Others#vs#the#Netherlands,!23!April,!Reports!1997_III,!
691,!(1998)!25!EHRR!647!
• Vanyan#vs#Russia,!no.!53203/99,!ECHR!2006/11!
• Veselov# and# Others# vs# Russia,# nos.! 23200/10,! 24009/07! and! 556/10,!
ECHR!2013_I#
UK!Judgments!
• AG’s#Reference#(No.3#of#2000),#(2001)!UKHL!53#
• Nottingham#City#Council#vs#Amin!(2000)!1!Cr.App.R.!426,!DC!
• R#vs#Hardwicke#and#Thwaites!(2001)!Crim.L.R.!218!
• R#vs#Harwood,!(1989)!Crim.!LR.!285!
• R#v#Latif![1996]!1!WLR!104!!
• R#v#Loosely![2001]!1!WLR!2060!!
• R#vs#Mealey#and#Sheridan!60!Cr.App.R.59,!CA! !
• R#vs#Sang,!69!Cr.App.!L.282!(1979)!2All!E.R.1222,!HL.! !
! 15!
• R#vs#Shahzad,!(1996)!1!All!E.R.!353! !
• R#vs#Smurthwaite#and#Gill,!(1994)!1!ALL!ER!898! !
• R#vs#Underhill!(1979)!1!Cr.App!R(S)!270! !
US!Judgments!
• Hampton#vs#US,!425!U.S.!484!(1976)!
• People#vs#Toler!(1962)!
• Sherman#vs#the#US,!287!U.S.!435,!53!S.Ct.!210,!77!L.ED.!413!(1932)!
• Sorrells#vs#the#US,!356!U.S.!369,!78,!S.Ct.!819,!2!L.ED.!848!(1958)!
• US#vs#Healy,!!D.C.!Mont,!202!!349!
• US#vs#Russell,!411!U.S.!423!(1973)!
• Woo#Wai#vs#United#States,!223!F.!412,!412_13!(9th!Cir.!1915)!
Italian!Judgments!
• Re#Arena#ed#altro,!Corte!di!Cassazzione!Sezzione!I,!17th!December!1970,!
number!3014!
• Re#Herman,!Corte!di!Cassazzione,!14th!November!1974!
Australian!Judgment!
• Ridgeway#vs#the#Queen,!(1995)!184!CLR!19!
Canadian!Judgments!
• R#vs#Mack,!(1988)!2!S.C.R.!903,!10,!122!(Can.)!
• R#vs#Amato,!(1982)!2!S.C.R.!418!
New!Zealand!Judgments!
• Police#vs#Lavalle!(1979)!1NZLR!45!
Scottish!Judgments!
• Brown#vs#HM#Advocate!(2002)!SLT!809!
• Cook#vs#Skinner,!MacDonald#vs#Skinner!(1977)!JC!9!
• Doyle#vs#HM#Advocate!(2009)!HCJAC!86,!2010!GWD!
! 16!
• Marsh#vs#Johnston,!(1959)!SLT!(Notes)!28!
• Weir#vs#Jessop!(1991)!JC!146!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! 17!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS!
!
I!would! like!to!express!my!appreciation!to!my!co_supervisor!Dr.! Joseph!Giglio!
for! helping! me! acquire! a! better! understanding! of! the! Maltese! situation! with!
regards!to!the!main!theme!of!this!thesis.!!
!
My!gratitude!goes!to!my!parents!and!my!siblings!for!their!unfailing!confidence!
in!my!abilities! and!unceasing! encouragement! throughout! the!duration!of! this!
course.!Great!appreciation!goes!especially! to!my!mother!who!put!up!with!me!
during!stressful! times!and! to!my! father!who!although!not!always!appreciated!
tried!to!make!my!life!more!comfortable!during!the!past!six!years;!for!that!I!am!
forever!indebted.!!
!
A!heartfelt!thanks!goes!to!Dr.!Ludvic!Caruana!to!whom!I!will!always!be!grateful!
for!giving!me!the!opportunity!to!gain!an!insight!into!what!the!legal!profession!
really!entails.!His!continuous!patience,!trust!and!optimism!were!invaluable.!
!
Finally! I!wish!to!thank!Dr.!Tonio!Azzopardi!who!through!his! lectures! instilled!
my! love! for! human! rights! law.! His! help,! support! and! assistance! in! the! initial!
proposal!of!this!thesis!were!indispensable.!
!
!
! 18!
ABBREVIATIONS!
!
AG!–!Attorney!General!
ECHR!–!European!Convention!on!Human!Rights!
ECtHR!–!European!Court!of!Human!Rights!
EU!–!European!Union!
PACE!–!Police!and!Criminal!Evidence!Act!!
UK!–!United!Kingdom!
US!–!United!Stated!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! 19!
ABSTRACT!
!
The! aim! of! this! thesis! is! to! explore! the! controlled! delivery! as! a! special!
investigative! technique!and!define!entrapment!vis_à_vis! the! fight!against!drug!
trafficking! in!order!to!show!that!notwithstanding!that! the! former!may! lead!to!
the! latter! they! are! two! distinct! concepts.! The! procedure! followed! by! the!
Executive!Police! and! the! role! they!play! in! such! an! investigation! is! one! of! the!
main! themes.! It! demonstrates!when! an! illegitimate! use! of! this! technique! can!
possibly! lead! to! entrapment! whereby! individuals! feel! that! they! have! been!
incited,! instigated! or! pressured! to! commit! an! offence! with! a! further!
consequence!of!having!their!right!to!a!fair!trial!as!guaranteed!under!Article!6!of!
the!European!Convention!on!Human!Rights!violated.!It!also!gives!an!overview!
of! the! case_law! particularly! from!Malta,! from! the! European! Court! of! Human!
Rights,! from!the!House!of!Lords!and!from!the!United!States!Supreme!Court!to!
show! how! they! all! deal! differently! with! the! issue! of! entrapment.! Some!
jurisdictions! elevate! it! to! a! defence! and! in! others! it! may! lead! either! to! the!
exclusion!of!all!evidence!gathered!through!the!illegitimate!controlled!delivery,!
to! a! stay! of! proceedings! due! to! abuse! of! process! or! to! a! mere!mitigation! in!
sentence.!The!other!main!theme!of!this!thesis!relates!to!the!general!principles!
established! by! the! Court! in! Strasbourg! which! should! be! followed! by! the!
member!states!when!carrying!out!a!controlled!delivery!and!how!to!deal!with!a!
plea!on!entrapment!when!raised!by!the!accused.!Special!emphasis! is!made!on!
the! fact! that! it! is!neither! the!controlled!delivery!nor!the!resulting!entrapment!
which! leads! to!a!breach,!but! rather! it! is! they!way!national! courts!deal!with!a!
complaint!that!puts!them!in!the!wrong.!!
!
!
!
!
!
Keywords:! agent' provocateur;! Article! 6! ECHR;! incitement;! plea! of!
entrapment;!undercover!agent!
! 20!
INTRODUCTION!
!
Over! the! years! organised! crime! has! become! more! sophisticated.! It! is! highly!
likely! that! drug! traffickers! are! aware! of! police! movements,! thus! making!
investigations!more! difficult.!With! no! victim! or!witness!willing! to! report! the!
matter!to!the!police!it!is!very!hard!to!trace!such!crimes.!1!In!order!to!be!able!to!
gather!evidence,!the!investigative!authorities!are!often!required!to!use!special!
investigative! techniques! including! controlled! deliveries! and! undercover!
operations! whereby! they! will! be! able! to! gain! access! to! the! illegitimate!
endeavours!of!those!involved!in!criminal!activities.!!
!
These!operations!provide!for!a!very!effective!way!of!gathering!evidence!for!the!
purpose! of! detecting! and! investigating! very!well_organised! or! latent! crimes.!2!
Their! use! is! unavoidably! induced! by! today’s! reality! in! combating! organized!
crime! in! the! spheres! such! as! drug! trafficking.!3!As! similar! operations! became!
more! prevalent,! so! did! defendants! claiming! that! the! authorities! tricked! them!
into!committing!a!crime.4!!
!
When! a! controlled!delivery! is! not! lawfully! carried! out,! various! rights!may!be!
breached.!For!instance!in!setting!up!the!environment!for!a!controlled!delivery,!
Article!8!may!be!violated!through!unauthorized!telephone!recordings.!However!
this!thesis!will!only!delve!into!the!general!right!to!a!fair!trial!as!guaranteed!by!
Article!6!of!the!Convention.!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!Brad,!Cristina!(21st!April!2013)!Abuse!of!process!in!the!pre_trial!stage!_!Entrapment,!Available!at:!http://lawyr.it/index.php/articles/international_focus/item/9_abuse_of_process_in_the_pre_trial_stage_entrapment!(Accessed:!22nd!November!2014).!2!Lijana!Stariene,! ‘The!limits!of!the!use!of!undercover!agents!and!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!under!Article! 6(1)! of! the! European! Convention! on! Human! Rights’,! University! of! Wroclaw,!Jurisprudencija,!2009,!3(117):pp.!263_284!3!.ibid#!4!Woo#Wai#vs#United#States,! 223!F.! 412,! 412_13! (9th!Cir.! 1915)! (first! federal! case! recognising!entrapment!defence)!
! 21!
Pro1active!Policing!
!Pro_active!policing!refers!to!what!is!known!as!undercover!policing!where!police!
officers!pose!as!buyers!of!drugs.!The!use!of!this!form!of!policing!together!with!
its! resulting! evidence! are! repeatedly! challenged! in! courts! because! it! involves!
deception.! It! also! includes! the! infiltration! into!potential! criminal! conspiracies!
which! is!more! problematic! than! an! undercover! operation.5!Sometimes! police!
are!tipped!off!about!specific!executors!of!crime!or!about!an!upcoming!criminal!
act!so!that!they!will!be!awaiting!for!the!suspect’s!moves!in!order!to!apprehend!
them.!Occasionally,!police!cross!the!line!and!instead!of!undercover!agents!they!
act!as!agents#provocateurs!whereby!they!encourage#the!offence.!!
!
A!distinction!must!be!made!between!facilitation!and!inducement!of!an!offence.!
The! courts! must! protect! against! the! ‘state# actually# creating# a# crime# for# the#
purposes# of# prosecution’.!6!In! an! age! where! covert! investigation! has! become!
routine,! the! safeguards! for! individuals! need! to! be! increased! to! ensure! that!
individual!liberties!are!protected.7!!Whoever!is!carrying!out!a!criminal!offence!
should!still!be!protected!from!arbitrary!intrusion!by!the!Executive!Police.!!!
!
Aim!and!Methodology!
!The!aim!of!this!thesis!is!to!establish!when!and!how!a!controlled!operation!can!
be! carried! out! legitimately,! particularly! following! principles! coming! from!
judgments!of!the!ECtHR!in!order!to!avoid!a!violation!of!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!
from! being! committed.! It! also! makes! a! thorough! distinction! between! a!
controlled! delivery! and! a! potential! resulting! entrapment.! It! also! analyses!
different!schools!of!thought!to!try!to!determine!whether!the!safeguards!of!the!
general!right!to!a!fair!trial!applies!to!pre_trial!proceedings.!Its!purpose!is!also!to!
establish! when! is! an! accused! deemed! to! have! been! incited! or! instigated! to!
commit!an!offence.!Another!target!is!to!establish!when!entrapment!can!actually!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5!Sanders,!A.!&!Young,!R.!‘Criminal’,!3rd!edition,!Oxford!University!Press,!2007,!New!York.!Pg!291!6 !Chernok,! A.V.! (2011)! 'Entrapment# under# controlled# operations# legislation:# A# Victorian#perspective',!Criminal!Law!Journal,#35,!pp.!361_375.!7!.ibid!
! 22!
lead!to!a!violation!of!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!as!secured!by!Article!6!of!the!ECHR.!
In!terms!of!methodology,!the!essential!sources!are!local!judgments!which!serve!
the!purpose!of!defining!controlled!deliveries!as!well!as!case_law!of!the!ECtHR,!
both!those!in!which!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!has!been!violated!and!those!which!
serve!as!examples!of!good!practice.!!
!
Division!of!Chapters!
!Chapter! 1! highlights! the! procedure! to! be! followed! to! carry! out! a! controlled!
delivery! in! accordance!with! the!Dangerous!Drugs! Ordinance8.! Local! case_law!
shows!the!role!taken!by!the!police!officers!as!the!delivery!unfolds!and!how!it!is!
actually! carried! out.! It! provides! for! a! preview! of! the! technique! as! from! the!
moment! police! come! to! know! about! the! drug! trafficking! until! the! suspect!
person! is! arrested.! Through! this! chapter! various! judgments! are! analysed,! all!
dealing!with!a!different!aspect!of! the!procedure.!Specific!reference! is!made!to!
the! authorisation! procedure! to! ascertain! whether! it! is! a! mere! formality! or!
otherwise.!!
!
Adequate! legal! framework! should! be! in! place! to! set! the! limits! on!when! such!
methods! of! investigation! can! be! resorted! to.! Different! states! have! different!
methods!of!authorising!a!controlled!delivery,!the!most!common!being!a!judicial!
authorisation!as!it!is!in!the!case!of!Malta!whereby!the!AG!or!the!duty!magistrate!
will!give! the!go!ahead.! In!Bulgaria! it! is! the!court!which!gives!approval!and! in!
Poland!and!the!Liechteinstein!the!regional!court!will!consent!to!it!provided!that!
there! is! a! prior! agreement! with! the! Prosecutor! General.! In! Croatia,! Turkey,!
Slovenia!and!Estonia!authorisation!is!granted!by!the!investigating!judge!and!in!
Greece!by!the!indictments!chamber.!!
!
The!same!chapter!also!provides!for!a!distinction!between!an!undercover!agent!
and! an! agent# provocateur! and! between! being! tempted! and! being! forced.! It!
briefly! explains! their! roles! and! whether! they! are! accepted! in! different!
jurisdictions.!When!undercover!agents!are!used! to! infiltrate! the!circle!of!drug!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!8!Chapter!101!of!the!Laws!of!Malta!
! 23!
traffickers!in!order!to!gather!evidence,!they!must!know!their!limits.!They!must!
not!become!agents#provocateurs#such!that!they!must!not!instigate,!encourage!or!
pressure!those!whom!they!are!investigating!into!committing!the!offence.!They!
must!seek!to!gather!sufficient!evidence.!
!
If! an! undercover! agent! acts! as! a! passive! observer,! there! is! no! impermissible!
police!conduct.!9!However! there! is!no!definition!of!what! falls! to!be!considered!
as!unacceptable!or! impermissible!police!behavior.! In!reality! it! is!very!difficult!
for! an! undercover! agent! to! play! a!minor! role! and! not! actively! engage! in! the!
planning!and!committing!of!the!crime.!!
!
When!a!controlled!delivery!takes!place!it!should!mean!that!the!drug!trafficking!
has!already!been!planned!and!it!should!not!be!the!undercover!agent!who!brings!
about! the! commission! of! the! crime! through! encouragement! or! incitement.! If!
that! happens,! his! role! changes! into! that! of! an!agent#provocateur#whereby!his!
actions!might!actually!lead!the!suspect!in!becoming!entrapped!into!carrying!out!
the!drug!sale.!!
!
The! following! chapter! deals! with! the! notion! of! entrapment.! The! ECtHR! uses!
entrapment,! police! incitement! and! police! provocation! interchangeably.! Their!
meaning!is!deemed!to!be!equivalent!to!the!‘instigation#of#crime#in#the#context#of#
an# official# investigation.’10#It! provides! a! thorough! analysis! of! how! different!
jurisdictions! deal! with! the! plea! of! entrapment! when! raised! by! an! accused!
during!his!trial!before!the!domestic!courts.!
!
In! the! US,! entrapment! serves! as! a! defence! following! an! approach! where!
predisposition! is! a! determining! factor.! It! makes! a! non_exhaustive! list! of!
instances! whereby! certain! behaviour! shows! that! a! person! had! criminal!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!9!Jerrard,! R.! (2001)! 'Entrapment:# abuse# of# legal# process# for# police# to# incite# crime',! The! Times,!29th!October!!10!Vitkauskas,!D.,!and!Dikov,!G.!(Strasbourg!2012)!Protecting!the!right!to!a! fair!trial!under!the!European!Convention!on!Human!Rights.!Council!of!Europe!Human!Rights!Handbook![Online].!Available! at:! http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/hr_natimplement/Source/documentation/hb12_fairtrial_en.pdf! (Accessed:! 25th! January! 2015).!Pp.!58!
! 24!
intentions! to! carry! out! the! drug_trafficking! irrespective! of! any! police!
encouragement.!On!the!other!hand,!the!common!law!system!in!the!UK,!provides!
for!two!remedies!when!the!plea!of!entrapment!is!raised;!it!has!the!discretion!to!
stay!proceedings!or!it!can!exclude!evidence!following!Section!78!of!PACE.!The!
Maltese!courts!do!actually!favour!a!mitigation!in!sentence!when!they!consider!
police!behaviour!as!being!inappropriate,!but!they!do!not!provide!for!a!defence.!!
Chapter! 2! also! provides! for! a! thorough! examination! of! the! extent! of! police!
participation! in! undercover! operations! and! allows! for! a! comparison!with! the!
ordinary! temptations! all! individuals! are! faced! with.! ! Temptation! and!
persistence!are!two!different!concepts!and!although!the!latter!might!sometimes!
lead! to! entrapment! it! is! not! a! general! rule.! An! individual! who! was! already!
predisposed!should!be!treated!differently!from!someone!who!was!not.!!
!
The! third! chapter!puts! forward!a! thorough!evaluation!of! the! criminal! limb!of!
the!right!to!a!fair!trial!as!well!as!the!minimum!guarantees!which!every!person!
accused!is!entitled!to.!Article!6!contains!both!a!general!right!to!a!fair!trial!and!a!
number!of!specific!rights!including!the!right!to!a!certain!minimum!standards!of!
procedural!fairness.!!Although!the!latter!are!mentioned!in!the!previous!chapter,!
this!thesis!focuses!mainly!on!the!general!right.!
!
Should!the!fair!trial!be!ignored,!through!the!belief!that!the!public!at!large!would!
benefit! by! having! one! less! drug! trafficker! in! the! streets?! This! question! is!
answered! in! the!negative! following!an!analysis!of! the! judgment!of!Teixeira#de#
Castro# vs# Portugal11#which! is! one! of! the! main! focuses! in! this! chapter.! This!
principle! is! reiterated! ad# nauseam# in! all! following! judgments! on! the! same!
subject! matter.! Lüdi# vs# Switzerland12!is! another! judgment! of! the! Strasbourg!
Court!which! has! set! out! general! principles!which! are! continuously! quoted! in!
later!judgments.!
!
This! chapter! also! gives! an! evaluation! of! how! ! and! when! a! human! rights!
application! is! allowed! to! be! heard! before! the! ECtHR.! It! states! against! what!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!no:!44/1997/828/1034,!ECHR!1998_VI!12!no!:!12433/86,!ECHR!1992_VI!
! 25!
violations! can! the! complaint! be! addressed! and! also! analyses! what! the! same!
Court! should! discern,! discover,! establish! and! confirm! before! determining!
whether!an!application!is!even!admissible!to!be!heard!before!it.!
!
The!Convention!does!not! forbid! the!use!of! special! investigative! techniques!as!
long! as! the! human! rights! and! freedoms! as! set! out! in! the! Convention! and!
reinforced!by!the!case_law!of!the!ECtHR!are!respected.!When!using!controlled!
operations! and! undercover! techniques,! adequate! and! sufficient! legal! and!
internal! safeguards! against! abuse! should! be! in! place.13!“The# public# interest#
cannot#justify#the#use#of#evidence#obtained#as#a#result#of#police#incitement,#as#this#
would#expose#the#accused#to#the#risk#of#being#definitely#deprived#of#fair#trail#from#
the# outset.”14!Thus,! the! public! interest! does! not! validate! the! use! of! evidence!
gathered!following!provocation!or!instigation.!!
!
The!requisite!of!the!proper!administration!of!justice,!which!is!inferred!from!the!
right!to!a!fair!trial,!applies!to!all!criminal!offences,!notwithstanding!the!fact!that!
the!State!is!required!to!take!suitable!measures!to!limit!organized!crimes.!“The#
right# to# the# fair# administration# of# justice# holds# so# prominent# a# place# in# a#
democratic#society#that#it#cannot#be#sacrificed#for#the#sake#of#expedience.”15#
!
Reviewed! in! the! forth! chapter! are! the! general! principles! established! by! the!
ECtHR!in!relation!to!Article!6!suggesting!safeguards!to!protect!the!human!rights!
of! those! accused! with! drug! trafficking.! These! include! the! way! in! which! a!
controlled! operation! is! to! be! carried! out! and! to! establish! whether! the!
undercover!agent!had!carried!out! the! investigations! in!an!“essentially#passive”#
manner.! It! also! provides! a! non_exhaustive! list! of! what! sort! of! behavior! can!
actually! be! equivalent! to! incitement,! compulsion! or! pressure! which! would!
eventually!lead!the!accused!to!plead!entrapment.!Additionally,!chapter!4!makes!
a!brief!examination!of!how!a!plea!of!entrapment!is!to!be!properly!reviewed!in!
order!to!be!in!line!with!the!right!to!a!fair!trial.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!13!Ramanauskas# vs# Lithuania! (GC)! no.! 77420/01;! National! Anti_Corruption! Directorate! of!Romania!(20_22!October!2010)!Effective!means!of!investigation!and!prosecution!of!corruption,!Bucharest,!Romania:!OECD!pg!8!14!Ramanauskas#vs#Lithuania!§54!15!Ramanauskas#vs#Lithuania!§51!!
! 26!
The! main! difference! of! the! requirement! of! “fairness”! from! all! the! other!
elements!of!Article!6!is!that!it!covers!proceedings!as!a!whole,!and!the!question!
whether! a! person! has! had! a! “fair”! trial! is! looked! at! by! way! of! cumulative!
analysis! of! all! the! stages,! not! merely! of! a! particular! incident! or! an! isolated!
procedural!defect;! as! a! result,! defects! at!one! level!may!be!put! right! at! a! later!
stage.!16!
However,!it!is!important!that!in!order!to!assess!the!fairness!of!a!trial,!it!has!to!
be!determined!whether!the!pre_trial!stage!investigations!were!conducted!with!
respect! to! the!rule!of! law.!17!A! thorough!analysis!of! the! local!and!ECtHR!case_
law! is! carried! out! to! put! forward! the! two! opposing! schools! of! thought! as! to!
whether!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!should!be!applicable!to!pre_trial!proceedings!or!
not.!Special!reference!is!made!to!the!controversy!which!arose!in!the!judgment!
of!Alan#Muscat#vs#AG18#and! the!ongoing!one!of!Henry#Grogan#u#Luke#Muscat#vs#
AG19.!!!
!
This!chapter!ends!with!an!analogy!to!the!right!of!legal!assistance!at!the!pre_trial!
stage!since!in!recent!years!the!Court!has!started!attaching!greater!importance!
to! certain! crucial! moments! in! the! proceedings,! in! particular! to! the! first!
questioning!of!a!suspect!in!criminal!proceedings.20!It!stated!that!“Article#6#may#
be#relevant#before#a#case#is#sent#for#trial#if#and#so#far#as#the#fairness#of#the#trial#is#
likely# to# be# seriously# prejudiced# by# an# initial# failure# to# comply# with# its#
provisions.”21#
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!16!Vitkauskas,!D.,!and!Dikov,!G.!(Strasbourg!2012)!Protecting!the!right!to!a! fair!trial!under!the!European!Convention!on!Human!Rights.!Council!of!Europe!Human!Rights!Handbook![Online].!Available! at:! http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/hr_natimplement/Source/documentation/hb12_fairtrial_en.pdf! (Accessed:! 25th! January! 2015).!Pp.!58!17!Brad,! Cristina! (21st! April! 2013)! Abuse! of! process! in! the! pre_trial! stage! _! Entrapment,!Available! at:! http://lawyr.it/index.php/articles/international_focus/item/9_abuse_of_process_in_the_pre_trial_stage_entrapment!(Accessed:!22nd!November!2014).!18!First!Hall!of!the!Civil!Court!(Constitutional!Jurisdiction),!18th!October!2013,!45/2013!19!First!Hall!of!the!Civil!Court!(Constitutional!Jurisdiction),!80/2012!(pending)!20!Salduz#v.#Turkey! [GC],! no.! 36391/02,! ECHR!2008_XI,! §§56_62;! Vitkauskas,! D.,! and!Dikov,! G.!(Strasbourg!2012)!Protecting!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!under!the!European!Convention!on!Human!Rights.! Council! of! Europe! Human! Rights! Handbook! [Online].! Available! at:!http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/hr_natimplement/Source/documentation/hb12_fairtrial_en.pdf!(Accessed:!25th!January!2015).!Pp.!58!21!Salduz#v.#Turkey,!§§50!
! 27!
The! final! chapter!mainly! deals!with! the! case_law!of! the! ECtHR.! By! looking! at!
how! the! operation! was! carried! out! and! the! overall! behavior! of! all! those!
involved!one!will!be!able!to!see!how!the!same!court!will!ascertain!whether!the!
applicant! was! subject! to! any! pressure! or! instigation! to! carry! out! drug!
trafficking.22!A!controlled!delivery!will!not!automatically!entail!a!breach!of!the!
right!to!a!fair!trial;!when!it!is!not!properly!carried!out!it!may!then!actually!lead!
to! entrapment.! However,! if! the! plea! of! entrapment! is! duly! assessed! by! the!
national!courts,!even!though!there!might!have!been!entrapment,!no!breach!of!
Article!6!occurs.!This! is!due! to! the! fact! that!not!every!entrapment!necessarily!
violates!the!rights!guaranteed!under!Article!6!of!the!Convention.!Case_law!dealt!
with!in!this!chapter!established!the!best!possible!way!for!the!domestic!courts!to!
avoid!breaching!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!of!those!accused.!!
!
There! is! no! definition! of! fairness! and! although! there! is! no! exhaustive! list!
establishing!what! instances! renders! a! trial! unfair,! the! case_law! of! the! ECtHR!
provide! guidelines! both! to! the! police! as!well! as! to! the! domestic! courts.! They!
should!be!looked!at!with!caution!to!avoid!humiliating!the!national!system!time!
and! time! again! before! the!ECtHR.! If! the! latter’s! judgments! are! looked! at! as! a!
lighthouse,!whereby! they!will! be! considered!as! a! guiding! creature,! applicants!
would! not! have! to! resort! to! the! Court! in! Strasbourg! because! they! would! be!
obtaining!a!similar!redress!from!the!courts!of!their!home!country.!This!would!
be!the!ideal!scenario!both!as!a!way!of!diminishing!similar!fact!cases!into!being!
dealt!with!by!the!ECtHR!and!also!as!a!way!of!having!those!accused!not!having!to!
resort! to! the!most! superior! court!when! the! latter! had! already! established! its!
view!on!a!similar!occasion.!
!
Fairness!
!Judge! Loucaides! in! his! partly! concurring,! partly! dissenting! opinion! in! the!
judgment! of!Khan#vs# the#United#Kingdom23!held! that! “the# term# ‘fairness’,#when#
examined#in#the#context#of#the#ECHR#implies#observance#of#the#rule#of#law#and#for#
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!22!R#vs#Hardwicke#and#Thwaites!(2001)!Crim.L.R.!218!23!no.!35394/97,!ECHR!2000_X!
! 28!
that#matter#it#presupposes#respect#of#the#human#rights#set#out#in#the#Convention.”#24#
!
Fairness! puts! a! clear! positive! obligation! on! the! national! courts! to! assess!
whether!a!person!was!incited!to!commit!a!criminal!act.!25!Although!entrapment!
can! constitute! a! breach! of! the! requirement! of! “fairness”! under! Article! 6,! a!
conviction!by!entrapment!is!not!necessarily!a!wrongful!one.26!!!
!
“I# cannot#accept# that# a# trial# can#be# ‘fair’,# as# required#by#Article# 6,# if# a# person’s#
guilt# for# an# offence# is# established# through# evidence# obtained# in# breach# of# the#
human# rights# guaranteed#by# the# convention…I#do#not# think# one# can# speak#of# a#
fair# trial# if# it# is# conducted# in# breach# of# the# law…Breaking# the# law,# in# order# to#
enforce#it,#is#a#contradiction#in#terms#and#an#absurd#proposition.”!27!!
!
Furthermore,!malpractice!by!law!enforcement!agencies!as!well!as!unfair!trials!
undermine! public! confidence! in! the! legitimacy! of! the! criminal! justice! system!
and!bring!it!into!disrepute.28!
!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!24!.ibid!!25!Lijana!Stariene,!‘The!limits!of!the!use!of!undercover!agents!and!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!under!Article!6(1)!of!the!European!Convention!on!Human!Rights’,!pp.!263_284!26!Vitkauskas,!D.,!and!Dikov,!G.!(Strasbourg!2012)!Protecting!the!right!to!a! fair!trial!under!the!European!Convention!on!Human!Rights.!Council!of!Europe!Human!Rights!Handbook![Online].!Available! at:! http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/hr_natimplement/Source/documentation/hb12_fairtrial_en.pdf! (Accessed:! 25th! January! 2015).!Pp.!58!27!Dissenting!Opinion!of!Judge!Loucaides!in!Khan#vs#the#United#Kingdom,!no.!35394/97!28!R#vs#Hardwicke#and#Thwaites!(2001)!Crim.L.R.!218;!Chernock,!A.V.!(2011)!‘Entrapment!under!controlled!operations!legislation:!A!Victorian!perspective’,!pp.!361_375!
! 29!
Chapter!1!:!CONTROLLED!DELIVERY!AS!A!SPECIAL!
INVESTIGTIVE!TECHNIQUE!
!
“Decoys# are# permissible# to# entrap# criminals# but#not#to#create#them.”#29''
1.1.!Introduction!!
1.1.1.!Necessity!Is!the!Mother!of!Invention!
!Controlled! delivery! is! predominantly! used! to! uncover! drug! trafficking;! a!
victimless!crime!which!although!does!not!operate!against!a!particular!victim!it!
operates! against! the! public! at! large.! The! Executive! Police! resort! to! such!
methods! of! detection! because! such! offences! take! place! willingly! and!
clandestinely! and! thus! leave! very! little! or! no! evidence! at! all.! In!most! cases! a!
controlled! delivery! would! be! the! only! opportunity! for! the! police! to! gather!
enough! evidence! to! convict.! When! Police! suspect! or! are! informed! that! such!
dealings!are!being!planned,!in!order!not!to!alert!the!suspects!they!might!opt!to!
make!a!controlled!delivery.!!
!
1.2.!Description!of!the!Controlled!Delivery!Procedure!
!This! technique! would! be! better! described! rather! than! defined.! Different!
countries! have! different! legal! frameworks! or! guideline! documents! for!
controlled! deliveries.! In! Malta! the! concept! of! controlled! deliveries! was!
introduced!through!the!1994!amendments.!Article!30B!of!the!Dangerous!Drugs!
Ordinance30!describes!it!as:!
!
“the#technique#of#allowing#an#illicit#or#suspect#consignment#of#a#dangerous#drug#
to# pass# out# of,# through# or# into#Malta,# or# from# one# place# or# person# in#Malta# to#!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!29!United#States#vs#Healy,!D.C.!Mont,!202!F!349!30!Chapter!101!of!the!Laws!of!Malta!
! 30!
another#place#or#person# in#Malta,#or# into# the# territory#of#another# country,#with#
the#knowledge#and#under#the#supervision#of#the#Executive#Police#…#with#a#view#to#
identifying# persons# involved# in# commission# of# offences# under# this#
Ordinance…”31(emphasis!added!by!the!author).!
!
In! this! first! premise,! fully! aware! that! a! drug! consignment! is! about! to! pass!
through!Malta,!the!Police!allow!it!to!take!place!under!their!supervision!in!order!
to!establish! its!origin!and! its!eventual!endpoint!as!well!as! to!secure!evidence.!
Hence,! they! would! be! able! to! identify! and! detect! those! involved.! This! is!
controlled!delivery.!!
Sub_article!(3)!of!the!same!Article!further!states!that:!
“It# shall# also# be# lawful# for# the# Executive# Police# or# for# a# person# under# the#
supervision#or#direction#of#the#Executive#Police,#with#a#view#to#identifying#persons#
involved#in#the#commission#of#offences#under#this#Ordinance,#and#with#the#consent#
of# the# Attorney# General# or# of# a#magistrate,# to# acquire# or# procure# a# dangerous#
drug#…#from#any#person#or#place.”#(emphasis!added!by!the!author).!
The! second! proposition! refers! to! controlled! dealing! rather! than! controlled!
delivery.! Controlled! dealings! are! carried! out! through! the! use! of! undercover!
agents! or! informants!whereby! they!will! be! authorized! to! obtain! and! acquire!
drugs! from! drug! dealers.! Both! a! controlled! dealing! as! well! as! a! controlled!
delivery!permit!the!Police!to!arrest!the!offenders!in#flagrante#delicto.!!
!
Our! description! of! a! controlled! delivery! is! modeled! on! that! of! the! 1988! UN!
Convention! against! Illicit! Traffic! in! Narcotic! Drugs! and! Psychotropic!
Substances.32!According! to! this! Convention,! controlled!delivery! is! a! technique!
allowing! passage! of! illicit! or! suspect! consignment! with! the! knowledge! and!
under!the!supervision!of!competent!authorities.!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!31!Article!30B!(2),!Cap!101!Laws!of!Malta;!also! following!Article!121C!of!Medical!and!Kindred!Professions!Ordinance,!Cap.!31!of!the!Laws!of!Malta!and!Article!435D!and!435E!of!the!Criminal!Code,!Cap.!9!of!the!Laws!of!Malta.!32!Under!Article!1(g)!
! 31!
Usually,!Police!have!a! tip! that! there! is! going! to!be!a!drug!exchange!or!a!drug!
deal!and!they!set!up!a!surveillance!to!catch!the!parties!in!flagrante;#or!another!
individual33!makes! an! agreement! with! the! Executive! Police! and! under! their!
surveillance!he!sets!up!a!meeting!with!the!‘new’!accused!so!that!the!Police!will!
get!hold!of!him.!!!
!
1.3.!Controlled!Delivery!Procedure!
!
1.3.1.!When!No!Suspect!Is!Identified!
!In!the!following!controlled!delivery!Police!did!not!intrude!in!the!process!of!drug!
trafficking.!They!were!aware!of!what!was!going!on!and!let!everything!happen!
on!its!own.!!
!
1.3.1.1.!Repubblika!ta’!Malta!vs!Simon!Xuereb34!
!On! the! 26th! of! March! 2001! the! Police! Drug! Squad! received! anonymous!
information!that!a!package!containing!illicit!drugs!arrived!in!Malta!from!Canada!
addressed!to!a!certain!Joe!Portelli.!No!further!information!was!given!as!to!who!
were!the!individuals!involved.!
!
On!the!same!day,!a!controlled!delivery!of!the!suspected!package!was!authorized!
by! the! duty! magistrate! in! terms! of! Article! 30B! of! the! Dangerous! Drugs!
Ordinance! under! the! supervision! of! the! Executive! Police! and! the! forensic!
expert.!The!aim!and!objective35!of!such!controlled!delivery!was!to!intercept!and!
identify! the! persons! involved! in! such! drug! trafficking.! Hence,! the! controlled!
delivery!was!initiated!with!no!suspect!in!mind.!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!33!In!most!cases!accused!of!a!similar!offence!34!Criminal!Court,!5th!January!2004,!15/2003!35!Similarly!to!Article!121C!of!Medical!and!Kindred!Professions!Ordinance,!Cap.!31!of!the!Laws!of!Malta!(which!is!equally!important)!and!Article!435D!and!435E!of!the!Criminal!Code,!Cap.!9!of!the!Laws!of!Malta.!
! 32!
The!package!arrived!at!the!Maltapost!on!the!27th!of!March!2001,!the!day!after!
the! information!was! given! to! the!Police.!The!package!was!wrapped! in!brown!
paper!and! indicated!as! containing!auto!parts.! Several! attempts!were!made! to!
deliver!the!notice!to!inform!those!residing!in!that!address!that!they!received!a!
package,!but!no!one!came!forward!to!claim!it.!The!package!was!delivered!to!the!
post!office!everyday!and!kept!under!police!surveillance!until!closing!time.!After!
such! time! it!was!delivered! to! the! forensic! expert! and!kept! under!his! custody!
until!the!following!morning.!!
!
On!the!31st!of!March!2001,!upon!request!of!the!Police!Inspector,!the!Magistrate!
authorized!that!an!identical!package36!be!reproduced!and!the!original!one!was!
kept!under!the!custody!of!the!forensic!expert.!!
!
Police!kept!surveilling!the!Maltapost!branch!everyday,!and!on!the!23rd!of!April!
2001,!a!delivery!man!of! the!same!post!office!presented! ‘l2avviż#għall2kunsinna#
ta’# pakk’# and! he! was! allowed! to! withdraw! the! package! in! question.! Police!
followed! him! and! later! stopped! him!whereby! he!willingly!made! a! statement!
and!mentioned!the!names!of!those!who!had!asked!him!to!withdraw!the!package!
from!the!post!office.!From!that!point!onwards,!following!a!request!of!the!Police,!
he!freely!collaborated!with!them;!in!the!sense!that!he!accepted!to!call!the!next!
person!involved.37!!
!
The! Magistrate! was! updated! and! informed! with! this! development! and! he!
authorised!that! the!process!of! the!controlled!delivery!was! to!continue!so! that!
more!of! those! involved!would!be! identified.! From! this!moment! on! the!parcel!
exchanged! hands! various! times,! leading! to! a! successful! controlled! delivery!
because!all!those!involved!were!captured.!!
!
On!the!24th!of!April!2001,!the!Magistrate!ordered!such!parcel!to!be!opened!in!
his!presence!and!under!his!supervision.!Tests!were!run!on! its!contents!which!
confirmed!that!they!were!illicit!drugs.!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!36!identical!in!its!physical!appearance!and!its!weight!37!the!person!who!had!asked!him!to!withdraw!the!parcel!from!the!post!office.!
! 33!
This!was!a!proper!controlled!delivery!where!Police!obtained!all!the!necessary!
authorisations!from!the!Magistrate!and!the!latter!was!kept!informed!every!step!
of!the!way.!The!offence!had!already!been!committed;38!the!Executive!Police!did!
not!allow!it!to!go!further.!They!carried!out!surveillance!and!simply!looked!over!
the!storyline!to!unfold.!Those!accused!did!everything!themselves;!they!needed!
no! help! from! the! Police! for! the! execution! of! the! offence.! No! reference! to!
instigation! or! breach! of! human! rights! was! made! because! Police! were! mere!
observers,!!they!did!not!get!involved.!
!
1.3.2.!When!Having!A!Suspect!In!Mind!
!In! the! next! controlled! delivery! Police! were! aware! that! the! defendant! was!
trafficking!drugs,!however,!it!was!them!who!told!the!informer!what!to!do.!!
!
1.3.2.1.Repubblika!ta’!Malta!vs!Henry!Grogan!et39!
!In! the! Repubblika# ta’# Malta# vs# Henry# Grogan# et! the! duty! magistrate! gave!
authorization! for! a! controlled! delivery! to! take! place! under! Article! 30B! of!
Chapter! 10140!of! the! Laws! of!Malta.! The! authorization!was! for! an! informant,!
Anthony! Calleja,! to! meet! up! with! Henry! Grogan41!in! order! to! enter! into! an!
agreement!for!the!purchase!of!an!established!amount!of!cannabis.!It!was!upon!
the! instructions!of! the! Inspector!dealing!with! this! case! that!Calleja! requested!
“20#sapuna#raża#tal2cannabis”#from!Grogan,!but!the!latter!replied!that!he!could!
only!supply!him!with!19,!to!which!Calleja!agreed.!!
!
In!this!case!authorization!was!given!on!the!20th!of!January!2010!and!on!the!9th!
of!February!2010!Calleja!received!a!sample!from!Grogan.!It!was!on!the!10th!of!
February! 2010! that! the! Magistrate! was! informed! that! Calleja! was!
communicating!with!Grogan!whereby!the!former!told!the!latter!that!he!had!all!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!38!Drugs!were!imported!in!Malta!39!7/2012!40!Dangerous!Drugs!Ordinance!41!the!suspect!
! 34!
the!money42!necessary!for!the!deal!to!take!place.!Calleja!and!Grogan!met!at!an!
agreed! place! and! upon! seeing! the! money,! the! latter! called! other! people43!to!
come! forward! with! the! drugs! at! which! point! they! were! all! arrested.! The!
controlled!delivery!came!to!an!end!upon!their!arrest.44!!
!
In! this! case! the! controlled! delivery! was! challenged 45 !and! is! still! being!
challenged.46!
!
1.4.!A!Controlled!Dealing!Following!Predisposition!of!the!Suspect!
!
1.4.1.!Pulizija!(Spettur!Dennis!Theuma)!vs!Rosario!Brincat47!
!As! soon! as! Joseph! Borg!was! arrested! for! drug! trafficking,! he! alleged! that! his!
supplier! was! Rosario! Brincat.! He! expressed! his! wish! to! collaborate! with! the!
Police!whereby!the!latter!got!the!necessary!authorization!from!the!Magistrate!
to!carry!out!a!controlled!delivery.!Under!Police!supervision!Borg!called!Brincat!
asking! him! whether! he! had! “sriedek”48!available.! They! agreed! on! a! meeting!
place! and! before! the! operation! started,! Borg! was! strip_searched,! a! sort! of!
assurance! that! he! was! not! carrying! anything! illicit.! Police! gave! photocopied!
money!to!Borg!and!he!met!with!Brincat!at!the!agreed!meeting!place.!
!
Following! such! controlled! dealing! Brincat! ended! up! being! accused! of! drug!
trafficking.!His!defence!was!that!such!dealing!was!illegal!because!Borg!had!only!
assisted! the! Police! by! way! of! vendetta! against! him! because! Borg! owed! him!
money.!Brincat!also!claimed!that!the!money!Borg!had!given!him!were!therefore!
dues!owed!to!him!and!not!payment!for!drugs.!He!negated!the!fact!that!he!was!a!
drug!trafficker.!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!42!which!was!supplied!by!the!Police!43!who!are!now!co_accused!with!him!in!Repubbika!ta’!Malta!vs!Henry!Grogan!et,!7/2012!44!this!controlled!delivery!has!been!challenged!by!some!of!the!defendants.!One!challenge!is!still!pending.!45!Alan!Muscat!vs!AG,!45/2013!!46!Henry!Grogan!et!vs!AG,!80/2012!47!Court!of!Magistrates!as!a!Court!of!Criminal!Judicature,!22nd!March!2014,!22/2003!48!whereby!one!‘serduk’#meant!one!gram!of!heroin!
! 35!
However,!the!Court!said!that!“il2faċilita’#li#l2istess#Borg#ċempel#biha#lil#Brincat#u#
rranġa# biex# jixtri# s2sriedek,# turi# li# dawn# kienu# ben# konoxxenti# ta’# xulxin# u# tal2
prodotti# li# wieħed# ibiegħ# u# l2ieħor# irid# jixtri!”# The! controlled! delivery! was!
deemed!to!be! legitimate.! It!was!only!after!Borg!came!out!of! the!garage!of! the!
defendant!that!the!Police!found!drugs!in!his!pocket.!
!
1.4.3.!Requirement!of!Consent!From!the!Magistrate!
!
1.4.3.1.!Repubblika!ta’!Malta!vs!Andre’!Falzon49!
!This! case!was!built! upon!a! controlled!delivery! in! terms!of!Article!30B!of!Cap!
10150!following! information!that! the!accused!was!going!to! take!part! in!a!drug!
deal.! From! the! time! of! authorization! until! the! time! of! the! controlled! delivery!
itself!there!were!only!minutes!to!spare.!Bjorn!Formosa,!informant,!went!on!site!
as!instructed!by!the!Police!to!buy!drugs!from!the!accused.!!
!
The!defence!of!the!accused!was!that!this!mentioned!controlled!delivery!was!not!
done! in!accordance!with! the! law,!because!no!consent!of! the!Magistrate!or!AG!
were! exhibited! in! the! judicial! process.! In! the! absence! of! such! consent,! he!
claimed! that! this! investigative! technique!was! illegal! to! such! an! extent! that! it!
amounted!to!entrapment.!
!
However,! the!Court!said! that! the! law!does!not!state! that! the!abovementioned!
consent! has! to! be! made! in! writing! ad# validitatem.! In! an! ideal! world,! all!
authorisations!made!by!the!Magistrate!to!the!Executive!Police!are!duly!written,!
signed!and!kept!as!part!of! the!process.!However,! in! reality,! in!most! instances!
there! would! not! be! enough! time! for! such! consent! to! be! given! and! made! in!
writing.!In!the!majority!of!cases,!due!to!lack!and!constraints!of!time!to!organize!
the!controlled!delivery,! the!police! inform!the!duty!magistrate!via!phone_call!a!
few!moments!before!the!controlled!delivery!is!actually!carried!out.!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!49!Criminal!Court!,!10th!October!2012,!13/2009!50!Dangerous!Drugs!Ordinance!
! 36!
A! verbal! consent! is! frequently! given,! and! it! is! only! at! a! later! stage! that! the!
relevant!documents!are!truly!signed.!Such!documents!are!not!necessary!for!the!
validity! of! the! controlled! delivery,! the! most! important! thing! is! that! there! is!
proof! and! evidence! that! the! Magistrate! was! informed! and! had! given! his!
consent.!“Xiehda#ġuramentata#tal2Ispettur#li#jkun#ottjena#tali#permess”#is!enough.!
The!court!found!no!procedural!defect!in!this!mentioned!controlled!delivery.!!
!
“Fil2fatt# fil2maġġoranza# tal2każijiet# jirriżulta,# minħabba# n2nuqqas# ta’# ħin#
disponibbli# għall2pulizija# u# sabiex# jorganiżżaw# din# il2konsenja# kontrollata,#
jinfurmaw# lill2Maġistrat# propju# ftit# mumenti# qabel# ma# ssir# il2konsenja,# il2
Maġistrat# jagħti# l2kunsens# tiegħu# verbalment# imbagħad# aktar# tard# jiffirma# d2
dokumenti# għat2tali# konsenja.# Dawn# id2dokumenti# mhumiex# neċessarji# għall2
validita’# tal2konsenja,# l2importanti# illi# jkun#hemm#prova# illi# l2Maġistrat# ikun#ġie#
nfurmat#u#ta#l2kunsens#tiegħu.”#
##
1.5.!Is!the!Authorization!From!the!Magistrate!A!Mere!Formality?!
!How! is! this! method! of! special! investigative! techniques! effective! and!
transparent?!How!will!the!magistrate!discern!if!the!Police!behaved!in!a!morally!
reprehensible!manner,!i.e.!before!a!plea!is!raised!by!the!accused!during!criminal!
proceedings?!!
!
In!reality!the!authorization!is!more!of!a!formality!rather!than!anything!else.!The!
magistrate! is! not! really! aware! of! the! facts! of! the! case,! or! how! will! such!
controlled! delivery! be! executed! or! how! were! the! investigations! undertaken!
prior!to!such!delivery!being!carried!out.!He!could!be!approving! for!any!abuse!
rendered! as! such! by! the! police.! The! latter! could! be! acting! or! have! acted! as!
agents#provocateurs,#but!the!Magistrate!will!not!know!until!evidence!is!brought!
forward!before! the!Court.! It! could!be! an! embarrassment! to! the!Magistrate! to!
approve!and!consent!to!something!like!this.!
!
Why!is!there!the!need!for!consent!if!this!is!obtained!in!the!few!moments!Police!
have! to! spare! on! their! way! to! actually! execute! the! delivery?! Consent! or!
! 37!
authorization!of! the!Magistrate!does!not! render! the!operation! legitimate.! It! is!
apparent!that!they!are!almost!never!aware!to!what!they!are!consenting.!This!is!
demeaning! on! the! office! of! the!Magistrate.! If! everything! is! taken! care! of! and!
managed!by!the!police,!it!is!them!who!should!decide!whether!or!not!it!would!be!
appropriate!for!a!controlled!delivery!!to!take!place.!!
!
I!suppose!that! the!Inspector! involved! in!the!operation!could!and!should!be! in!
constant!communication!with!the!Magistrate,!i.e.!from!the!time!of!the!initiation!
of!the!investigations,!until!the!controlled!delivery!takes!place.!I!do!understand!
that! sometimes! there! are! ongoing! investigations! that! take! several! months,!
however!the!magistrate!should!at!least!be!informed!when!the!abovementioned!
investigations!reach!an!advanced!stage.!For! instance! if!A! is!helping! the!Police!
against!B,!the!Magistrate!should!be!informed!when!communications!between!A!
and!B!have!escalated,!i.e.!when!an!agreement!seems!to!be!very!close!to!actually!
happen.!!
!
As!the!law!stands!today,!Police!get!the!seal!of!approval!without!the!Magistrate!
scrutinizing!their!work,!at! least! in!an! informal!manner.!This! is!not!due!to!any!
fault!of! the!Magistrate!himself!because!he! is!not! in!a!position! to!question! the!
operation!before!approving!it.!Cognizance!of!the!names!of!those!involved!and!of!
the! place! where! the! delivery! is! to! take! place! is! not! enough! to! give! proper!
authorization.! The! corollary! is! that! it!would! be! better! if! such! requirement! is!
made!without,! because!when! the! controlled!delivery! is! challenged! it! puts! the!
magistrate!in!a!bad!light!and!allows!for!a!humiliation!to!his!office.!!
!
1.5.1.!No!Authorization!For!Controlled!Delivery!Was!Obtained,!Yet!It!Was!
Still!Considered!As!Being!One!
!
1.5.1.1.!Pulizija!Spettur!Neil!Harrison!vs!Ronald!Psaila51!
!Police! received! anonymous! information! that! Ronald! Psaila! had! cannabis! for!
sale.!The!Inspector!was!told!to!call!on!a!particular!number,!belonging!to!Psaila,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!51!Court!of!Criminal!Appeal!(Inferior!Jurisdiction),!8th!January!2002,!187/2001!
! 38!
and! by! claiming! “jien# ħabib# ta’# Olio”,! Psaila! would! have! cannabis! readily!
available!for!sale.!The!Inspector!called!him!right!away!and!without!identifying!
himself! as! such! he! claimed! to! be! Joseph,! a! friend! of! Olio! and! “irrid# tlieta”!
without!making!any!explicit!reference!to!drugs.!They!set!up!a!meeting!and!the!
Inspector! sent! two! plain! clothes! police! officers! who! were! instructed! that! as!
soon!as!they!see!a!person!who!fits!his!description!they!were!to!stop!him,!search!
him!for!drugs!and!arrest!him.!Upon!arrival,!they!approached!Psaila!who!asked!
them!“bagħatkom#Olio?”#and!! instead!of!replying!they!identified!themselves!as!
police!officers.!He!threw!the!drugs!on!the!floor!and!tried!to!run!away.!!
!
During! criminal! proceedings! Psaila! alleged! that! he! was! instigated! by! the!
Inspector! to! traffic! drugs! because! he! had! acted! as! an! agent# provocateur.!!
However,! the!Court! concluded! that! “kien#hemm#biss#operazzjoni#maħduma#bil2
għaqal#u# fil2parametri# tal2liġi.”#Police!were! exploring!what! Psaila! had! to! offer!
following!information!that!he!was!trafficking!drugs.!Officers!were!put!in!place!
so! that! if! the! information! were! to! be! true,! the! accused! would! be! caught! in#
flagrante.#During! his! telephone! conversation!with! Psaila,! the! Inspector! never!
mentioned! the!word!drugs,!he! simply! said! “irrid! tlieta”.!This! showed! that! the!
accused!was!predisposed,!without!the!need!of!any!instigation,!to!such!an!extent!
that!he!had!no!problem!selling!drugs!to!a!person!he!did!not!even!know.!!
!
The!Court!did!nevertheless!say! that! it!would!have!been!more!prudent! for! the!
Inspector! to!have!acted!on! the!express!authorization!and!consent!of! the!Duty!
Magistrate! or! AG! in! accordance! with! Article! 30B(3)! of! Cap! 101;! and! this! in!
order! for! him! to! be! 100%! covered! in! his! actions.! ! This! notwithstanding,! the!
Court!was!not!slightly!bothered!that!the!Inspector!chose!to!act!alone!instead!of!
informing! his! superiors! and! the! Magistrate;! it! deemed! it! to! be! a! controlled!
delivery!nonetheless.#I!suppose!that!this!leads!high_ranking!police!officers!into!
believing!that!they!actually!have!more!power!than!what!is!actually!stated!in!the!
law.!!
!
“Il2Qorti# hi# tal2fehma# li# l2fatt# li# l2offerta# da# parti# tal2imputat# ma# saritx#
spontaneament,# iżda# fuq# rikjesta# ta’#min# ried# jixtri# –#ma# jimmilitax#mill2fatt# illi#
! 39!
mmaterjalizza# r2reat# ta’# traffikar.”# Following! such! reasoning,! the! Police! can!
therefore!go!ahead!and!call! ever!drug!user,! instigate! them! to!provide!a! small!
amount!of!drugs!and!then!prosecute!them!for!trafficking.!!!
!
1.6.!Undercover!Agents!vs!Agent'Provocateur'
!In! the! ECtHR! judgment! of! Teixeira# de# Castro# vs# Portugal52!a! distinction! was!
made!between!actions!undertaken!by:!
1. an!undercover!agent!–!one!who!merely!gathers!information;!and!
2. an!agent#provocateur! –! one!who!provokes,! incites! and! instigates! other!
individuals!to!commit!an!offence.!
!
1.6.1.!Role!Of!An!Undercover!Agent!
!In! Lüdi# vs# Switzerland53the! ECtHR! held! that! it! is! “unobjectionable”# for! an!
undercover!agent!to!simply!ascertain!criminal!conduct!that!was!about!to!take!
place! irrespective! of! his! intervention.! Even! taking!part! in! an!offence! that! has!
already! been! laid! on! is! allowed,! as! long! as! it! is! done! for! the! purpose! of!
capturing!the!offenders.!!However!it!is!“not!permissible”!for!such!agent!to!incite!
criminal!endeavours! that!would!not!have!been!committed!had! it!not!been! for!
his! intrusion.! Police! should! not! “provoke# criminality# in# order# to# be# able# to#
prosecute#criminals#whose#readiness#to#commit#crime,#possibly#present#but#latent,#
would#otherwise#not#have#become#manifest.”54#In! such! instance! the!undercover!
agent!turns!himself!into!an!agent#provocateur.#!
#
As! long!as! the!actions!of!an!undercover!agent!are! in! line!with! the!rule!of! law!
and!do!not!exceed!what!can!be!assumed!from!other!private!individuals,55!they!
are! permissible.! However,! if! the! undercover! agent! instigates! further! a! crime!
that!was!nevertheless!still!going!to!be!committed,!but!to!a!lesser!extent,!it!will!
only!be!relevant!for!the!purpose!of!sentencing.!#!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!52!no:!44/1997/828/1034,!ECHR!1998_VI!53!no!:!12433/86,!ECHR!1992_VI!54!.ibid!55!i.e.!not!being!police!officers!
! 40!
This! notwithstanding,! there! is! no! protection! of! criminals! against! such! covert!
operations.!Every!individual!is!free!to!make!his!own!decisions.!Just!because!one!
is! deceived! as! to! the! identity! of! the! agent! does! not! mean! that! he! shall! be!
protected!and!have!all!charges!against!him!dropped.!It!is!not!illegitimate!for!a!
police!officer! to!observe! the!course!of! illegal!actions.”#In!a!controlled!delivery!
Police!cannot!prevent!the!drug!trafficking!from!taking!place,!they!merely!allow!
for! it! to! happen.! In! the! case! of! drug! trafficking! rather! than! being!
disproportionate,!the!use!of!police!officers!posing!as!buyers!has!time!and!time!
again!proved!to!be!effective,!efficient!and!necessary.!
!
1.6.1.1.!Undercover!Police!Officers!1!How!Far!Can!They!Go?!
!In! a! partly! dissenting! opinion! to! the! judgment! of! Lüdi# vs# Switzerland,! Judge!
Matscher!said!that:!
!
“I# accept# that# the# use# of# undercover# agents# or# other# tricks# used# by# police#
detective,#although#entirely#legitimate#(within#certain#limit),#is#not#very#‘nice’,#but#
in#the#fight#against#certain#types#of#criminality#–#such#as#drugs#2#…this#is#often#the#
only#method#which#makes#it#possible#to#identify#those#who#are#guilty#and#break#up#
criminal#gangs,#who#for#their#part#also#use#all#the#methods#available#to#them.#So#
anyone#who#knowingly#takes#part#in#organized#crime#runs#the#risk#of#falling#into#a#
trap.”56#
!
The!intervention!of!an!undercover!agent!has!no!effect!on!a!defendant’s!acts! if!
the!defendant!already!had!an!intention!to!commit!the!offence.!For!instance!by!
taking! various! preparatory! steps! whereby! one! would! have! committed! the!
offence!irrespective!of!the!intervention!of!the!undercover!agent!is!not!the!same!
as! when! the! accused! was! exposed! to! blatant! pressure! and! incitement! to!
participate!in!a!criminal!endeavor!of!which!he!was!later!convicted.!In!the!latter!
instance!the!under!cover!agent!becomes!an!agent#provocateur.##
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!56!Lüdi#vs#Switzerland,!no!:!12433/86,!ECHR!1992_VI!!
! 41!
1.6.2.!Agent!Provocateur!
!The! Royal! Commission! on! Police! Powers! in! 1982! in! the! UK57!defined! agent!
provocateur!as!“a#person#who#entices#another#to#commit#an#express#breach#of#the#
law#which#he#would#not#otherwise#have#committed#and#then#proceeds#to#inform#
against# him# in# respect# of# such# an# offence.”# This! definition! was! cited! with!
approval!in!R.#vs#Mealey#and#Sheridan.!58!
!
The!expression!“which#he#would#not#otherwise#have#committed”!is!imperative!in!
this!context!because!it!is!the!basis!of!the!distinction!between:!
1. an!agent#provocateur!as!the!person!who!instigates!the!commission!of!an!
offence!on!the!one!hand,!and!!
2. an! undercover! agent! as! the! person! who! tempts! another! who! was!
predisposed! to! commit! that! same! offence! independently! of! the!
intervention!of!the!police!on!the!other!hand.!
The! former! discredits! the! police! whereas! the! latter! helps! them! in! their!
investigations.!!
!
In! ir2Repubblika# ta’# Malta# vs# Eugenio# sive# Genio# Gaffarena 59 !an! agent#
provocateur# was! defined# “…bħala# xi# persuna# imqabbda# minn# xi# awtorita’,#
imqabbda#mill2pulizija,#li#tħajjar#lil#ħaddieħor#biex#jikser#il2liġi#jew#jikkommetti#xi#
delitt…imbagħad#din#il2persuna#tirrapurtah#ta’#dan#il2ksur.”#
#
1.6.2.1.!Is!An!Agent'Provocateur'Allowed!To!Be!Used!In!A!Controlled!
Delivery!In!Malta?!
!In! ir2Repubblika# ta’# Malta# vs# Eugenio# sive# Genio# Gaffarena,60 !the! Court! of!
Criminal!Appeal!held! that! the!use!of!an!agent!provocateur! is!allowed! in!Malta!
and!the!evidence!is!still!admissible!as!long!as!the!tricks!used!do!not!hinder!the!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!57!Cmd.!3297!58!60!Cr.App.R.!59,!CA!59!Court!of!Criminal!Appeal!(Superior!Jurisdiction)!,!19th!January!1996,!(not!reported)!60!.ibid!
! 42!
accused’s!‘capacita#di#intendere#e#di#volere.’61#This!means!that!the!accused!must!
not! have! been! impeded! from!his! ability! to! distinguish! between!what! is! good!
and!what! is! bad,!what! is! criminally!wrong! or! illegal.! The! Court! accepted! the!
tactic! of! using! tricks! and! traps! to!detect! and! apprehend! criminals! as! it! is! the!
case!with!controlled!delivery.!However,!no!activities!may!be!resorted!to!which!
will! actually! create! criminals.! Likewise! in# Pulizija# vs#Emmanuel#Vella# et#62#the!
Court!concluded!that!tricks!and!subterfuge!are!allowed!in!the!Maltese!policing!
system.!!
!
1.6.2.2.!The!Position!In!Malta!On!Agents'Provocateurs''
!In! ir2Repubblika#ta’#Malta#vs#Eugenio#sive#Genio#Gaffarena63!the!Court!said! that!
“ma# jagħmilx# sens# li# wieħed# jiġi# ġudikat# u# sentenzjat# fuq# kommissjoni# ta’# reat#
provokat#mill2istess#Pulizija#Eżekuttiva#u#fuq#montatura.”#As!a!concept,!the!agent#
provocateur# “hija# figura# ftit# jew# wisq# mistmherra# għaliex# essenzjalment# hija#
bbażata#fuq#il2qerq#u#l2abbuż#mill2fiduċja#ta’#dak#li#jkun.”##
#
There!is!agreement!that!it!should!not!be!the!function!of!the!Executive!Police!to!
induce!or!instigate!crimes!in!order!to!apprehend!criminals.!However,!the!Police!
cannot! be! disarmed! from! the! use! of! stratagems! and! agents# provocateurs#
especially! in! these! types! of! crimes,! i.e.! drug! trafficking.! ! Artifices,! stratagems!
and! traps! may! be! employed! by! the! Police! in! order! to! apprehend! those!
engrossed!in!a!criminal!endeavor.!Police!should!keep!in!mind!that!“decoys#are#
permissible#to#entrap#criminals#but#not#to#create#them.”#64##
#
1.6.2.3.!Tempted!or!Forced?!
!Distinction! should! be! made! between! “imħajjar”65 #and! “imġiegħel”#66 ;# these!
terms!are!not!interchangeable.!In!the!former!the!voluntary!element!still!exists,!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!61!will!and!understanding,!the!two!requisites!necessary!to!establish!criminal!intention!62!Court!of!Criminal!Appeal,!29th!January!1987!63!Court!of!Criminal!Appeal!(Superior!Jurisdiction),!19th!January!1996,!(not!reported)!64!United#States#vs#Healy!D.C.!Mont,!202!F!349!65!i.e.!tempted!
! 43!
but!the!same!cannot!be!said!with!regards!to!the!latter.!If!the!accused!is!forced,#
he!should!not!be!declared!guilty;!not!because!there!was!an!agent#provocateur!
but! rather! because! when! he! committed! the! offence! the! required! intentional!
element,!the!mens#rea,#was!missing.! !On!the!other!hand,!if!one!was!tempted#by!
the!agent#provocateur#and!he!gave! in! to! such! temptation!when! there!was! the!
possibility!to!resist!it,!then!he!committed!the!offence!voluntarily.!“L2importanti#
huwa# jekk# dak# li# kkommetta# l2att# ikkommettihx# volontarjament.”67#Hence! it! is!
irrelevant!that!had!the!accused!never!met!the!agent#provocateur#he!would!not!
have!committed! the!offence.!The!existence!of!such!agent!does!not!necessarily!
mean!that!the!accused!was!actually!forced!to!commit!the!offence.!!
!
1.6.3.!The!Position!On!Agents'Provocateurs'In!Other!Jurisdictions!
!
1.6.3.1.!United!Kingdom!
!In!Nottingham#City#Council#vs#Amin,68!Lord!Bingham!C.J.!said!that!it!was!“deeply#
offensive#to#ordinary#notions#of#fairness”!69!if!a!defendant!were!to!be!convicted!of!
a! crime! which! he! only! committed! because! he! had! been! “incited,# instigated,#
persuaded,# pressurized# or# wheedled”!70!by! a! law! enforcement! officer! who! is!
deemed!to!be!an!agent#provocateur.!!
!
1.6.3.2.!Italy!
!In!Italy,!as!it!is!the!position!in!Malta,!there!is!no!law!which!regulates!the!issue!of!
agents#provocateurs,#thus!one!would!need!to!resort!to!the!case_law.!In!Re#Arena#
ed# altro 71 :! “L’attivita’# dell’agente# provocatore# non# esclude# il# reato# quando#
l’impossibilita’#dell’evento#non#dipende#inidoneita’#assoluta#della#attivita’#posta#in#
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!66!i.e.!forced!67!Repubblika#ta’#Malta#vs#Eugenio#sive#Genio#Gaffarena!!68!(2000)!1!Cr.App.R.!426,!DC!69!.ibid!70!(2000)!1!Cr.App.R.!426,!DC!71!Corte!di!Cassazzione!Sezzione!I,!17th!December!1970,!number!3014!
! 44!
essere#dall’imputato,#e#cioe’#dal#originaria# inefficienza#causale#dell’azione#ai# fini#
della#produzione#dell’evento#stesso.”!72#
#
In! Re# Herman73 !the! same! Court! said! that! “Per2tanto,# l’attivita’# dell’agente#
provocatore# al# pari# che# l’intervento# della# polizia,# e’# causa# estrinseca,# per# nulla#
incidente# sull’# attuazzione# della# condotta# del# reo# a# raggiungere# il# risultato# che#
era#nei#suo#propositi,#sicche#gli#atti#da#lui#compiuti#conservano#pienamente#la#lora#
efficienza#causale#o#sintomatica.”!74!
#
1.6.3.3.!Conclusion!
!Even! in! the! most! democratic! and! advanced! states,! the! Executive! Police! still!
make! extensive! use! of! agents# provocateurs# to! discover! and! ascertain! the!
criminal! activities! of! which! they! have! the! duty! to! prevent.! Today,! criminal!
networks,! especially! those! involved! in! drug! trafficking,! are! so! organized! and!
work! in! an! efficient,! sophisticated! and! secret! manner,! that! it! is! almost!
impossible!for!the!Police!to!reign!over!them!if!they!do!not!manage!to!infiltrate!
in!such!criminal!organisations!with!the!help!of!agents#provocateurs.##
#
1.7.!When!Does!A!Controlled!Delivery!Fails!
!According!to!Eric!Colvin!there!are!3!instances!when!a!controlled!delivery!fails!
and! becomes! entrapment.! First,! the! conduct! of! an! undercover! agent! goes!
beyond!merely!facilitating!or!providing!an!opportunity!for!criminal!activity!that!
could! have! occurred! anyway.! Thereby! he! engages! in! more_active! forms! of!
inducement!which!either!generate!or!objectively!risk!generating!an!offence!that!
would!not!otherwise!have!occurred.!75!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!72!.ibid;!the!activity!of!the!agent#provocateur!does!not!exclude!the!crime!73!Corte!di!Cassazzione,!14th!novemebr!1974!74!.ibid;!!75!Colvin,!Eric!(2002)!'Controlled!Operations,!Controlled!Activities!and!Entrapment',!Bond#Law#Review,#14(2),!pp.!227_250.!
! 45!
Secondly,!when!without! a! reasonable! suspicion,! law! enforcement! officers! are!
engaged! in! random! ‘virtue2testing’! rather! than! in! offering! controlled!
opportunities! for! offenders! to! commit! offences.!76!The! third! instance! occurs!
when!there!is!disproportionate!unlawfulness!between!an!offence!committed!in!
order!to!obtain!evidence!and!the!offence!for!which!evidence!is!sought.!77!
!
1.8.!Conclusion!!
!A! fine! line! exits! between! controlled! delivery! or! controlled! dealing! and!
entrapment.! Article! 30B78!aims! to! detect! a! drug! offence! by! providing! an!
opportunity! to! a!would_be!offender!who!voluntarily! commits! an!offence.! It! is!
when! a! controlled! delivery! is! no! longer! controlled! but! becomes! an! enticed,!
instigated!delivery!that!it!may!lead!to!entrapment!and!to!a!potential!violation!of!
the!fundamental!human!right!of!having!a!fair!trial!as!guaranteed!under!Article!6!
of!the!ECHR.!!
!
A! distinction! must! be! made! between! a! police! officer! who! simply! joins# in! an!
existing!illegitimate!endeavor!and!one!who!positively#promotes!and#encourages!
a!crime!which!would!otherwise!not!have!been!committed.!79!
!
The! courts! have! not! universally! embraced! the! legitimacy! of! the! use! of!
undercover! police! officers! in! operations! susceptible! to! allegations! of!
entrapment. 80 !A! balance! of! interest! needs! to! be! found! between! the!
prosecution’s!thirst!of!finding!eloquent!evidence!and!the!defendant’s!rights.!81!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!76!.ibid!77!.ibid!78!Cap!101!of!the!Laws!of!Malta!79!Reed,!A.!&!Seago,!P.,!Criminal#Law!(2nd,!Sweet!&!Maxwell,)!p.284_287!80!McKay,! Simon! (9th! January!2009)! 'Approaching!Allegations!of!Entrapment!Part! I',!Criminal#Law# &# Justice# Weekly,! [Online].! Available!at:http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Approaching_Allegations_Entrapment_Part_I!(Accessed:!6th!November!2014).!81!Brad,!Cristina!(21st!April!2013)!Abuse#of#process#in#the#pre2trial#stage#2#Entrapment,#Available!at:! http://lawyr.it/index.php/articles/international2focus/item/92abuse2of2process2in2the2pre2trial2stage2entrapment!(Accessed:!22nd!November!2014).!
! 46!
Allowing!the!commission!of!an!offence!is!only!allowed!if!it!is!consistent!with!the!
ordinary! temptations! and! stratagems! that! those! involved! in! such! criminal!
activity!tend!to!be!confronted!with.!Although!it!is!an!accepted!principle!that!in!
actual!fact!it!is!an!intrusive!technique,!the!controlled!delivery!method,!does!not!
constitute! a! violation! of! the! right! under! Article! 6.82!It! is! only! when! one! can!
convincingly!show!that!the!crime!in!question!would!not!have!taken!place!had!it!
not! been! for! the! instigation! of! the! agent# provocateur! that! one! can! allege! a!
breach!of!the!right!to!a!fair!hearing.!#
!
In! Ridgeway# vs# The# Queen83 !McHugh! J.! said# “…# some# degree# of# deception,#
importunity# and# even# threats# on# the#part# of# the#authorities#may#be#acceptable.#
But#once#the#State#goes#beyond#the#ordinary,#it#is#likely#to#increase#the#incidence#
of#crime#by#artificial#means’.#!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!82!Of!the!Convention!83!(1995)!184!CLR!19,!92!
! 47!
Chapter!2!:!WHAT!LEADS!TO!ENTRAPMENT!IN!
CONTROLLED!OPERATIONS?!WHAT!SHOULD!AN!
ALLEGATION!OF!ENTRAPMENT!LEAD!TO?!IS!IT!A!DEFENCE?!!
!
When#Eve,#taxed#with#having#eaten#the#forbidden#fruit,#replied#‘the#serpent#beguiled#me’,#her#excuse#was,# at# most,# a# plea# in# mitigation# and# not# a#complete#defence.#84##
!
2.1.!Introduction!
!Few! people!would! criticize! investigative! practices! if! there!were! a! reasonable!
suspicion! of! criminal! activity! provided! that! there! is! no! other! viable! way! of!
obtaining!evidence!for!a!prosecution,!and!the!operation!was!to!do!no!more!than!
provide! an! opportunity! for! the! offence! to! occur! under! controlled!
circumstances.! 85 !Notwithstanding! that! these! investigatory! techniques! are!
justified,!there!are!parameters!as!to!what!is!tolerable.!When!Police!improperly!
facilitate! or! induce! the! commission! of! an! offence! through! deceptive!
investigative!techniques,!entrapment!may!ensue.86!
!
2.2.!Definition!
!In! 1988,! the! civil! liberties! organization! JUSTICE87!defined! entrapment! as! an!
occurrence! “where#a# person#has# been# induced# to# commit# an# offence#which# one#
would# not# have# committed# but# for# the# inducement.” 88 #Entrapment! entails!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!84!Choo,! Andrew! (July! 1990)! 'A#Defence# of# Entrapment',! The! Modern! Law! Review,#53(4),! pp.!453_471;!R!vs!Sang![1980]!AC!402,!446!per!Lord!Fraser!85!Colvin,! Eric! (2002)! 'Controlled!Operations,! Controlled!Activities! and!Entrapment',! pp.! 227_250.!86!.ibid!87!Under!surveillance,!a!JUSTICE!Report![1988]!88!McKay,! Simon! (9th! January!2009)! 'Approaching!Allegations!of!Entrapment!Part! I',!Criminal#Law# &# Justice# Weekly,! [Online].! Available!at:http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Approaching_Allegations_Entrapment_Part_I!(Accessed:!6th!November!2014).!
! 48!
evidence!that!the!crime!has!been!created,!instigated!or!procured!by!the!police!
through!undercover!agents!who!turned!into!agents#provocateurs.!89!#
!
In! Sorrells# vs# United# States 90 the! U.S.! Supreme! Court! held! that! there! is!
entrapment! ‘when# the# criminal# design# originates,# not# with# the# accused,# but# is#
conceived#in#the#mind#of#the#government#officers,#and#they#implant#in#the#mind#of#
an# innocent#person# the#disposition# to#commit# the#alleged#offence#and# induce# its#
commission#in#order#that#they#may#prosecute.’91!This!was!confirmed!in!Sherman#
vs#United#States.92!
!
2.3.!Investigation!is!not!entrapment!
!When! confronted! with! the! issue! of! entrapment,! Lord! Justice! Hoffman 93!
expressed! the!view! that!undercover!officers!will!have! to! show! interest! in! the!
subject! matter! of! the! crime! they! are! investigating.! He! observed! that,!
“undercover#officers#who# infiltrate# conspiracies…could#hardly# remain# concealed#
unless#they#show#some#enthusiasm#for#the#enterprise.”94!!Undercover!agents!are!
expected!to!play!along!in!order!to!secure!their!identity,!however!that!does!not!
lead!to!entrapment.!!
#
2.4.!‘Causing’!Crime!
!The!fact!that!government!agents!merely!afford!opportunities!or!facilities!for!the!
commission!of!the!offence!does!not!constitute!entrapment.!Entrapment!occurs!
only!when!the!criminal!conduct!was!the#product#of#the#creative#activity!of! law_
enforcement!officials.!95!This!means!that!the!criminal!intent!was!implanted!and!
manufactured!by!the!Executive!Police.!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!89!In#R#vs#Loosely,!Lord!Nicholas!of!Birkenhead!said!that!the!difficulty!lies!in!identifying!conduct!which!is!caught!by!such!imprecise!words!as!lure!or!incite!or!entice!or!instigate.!(para!2)!90!287!U.S.!435,!53!S.Ct.!210,77!L.ED.!413!(1932)!91!.ibid!92!356!U.S.!369,!78!S.Ct.!819,!2!L.ED.!848!(1958)!93!in!R.#vs#Looseley;#Attorney2General’s#Reference#(No!3!of!2000),![2001]!4!A.E.R.!897!at!para.!69!94!R#vs#Loosely,#(2001)!1!WLR!2060!95!Katz,!Lily!N.!(n.d.)!'Tailoring#Entrapment#to#the#Adolescent#Mind',!UC!Davis!Journal!of!Juvenile!Law!&!Policy,#18(1),!pp.!96_123.!
! 49!
!
The!police!would!be!causing!crime!if!the!defendant:!
i. would!not!have!committed!the!same!kind!of!offence!either!in!thought!or!
in!deed!without!their!involvement,!96!
ii. was! induced,! persuaded! or! lured! into! committing! crime! rather! than!
merely!being!provided!with!an!opportunity;!and97!
iii. was!not!a!‘real!criminal’!previously!involved!in!criminal!activity!but!was!
only!tempted!into!crime!through!police!operation.98!
!
2.5.!The!Plea!Of!Entrapment!
!The! plea! of! entrapment! presupposes! the! commission! of! the! offence.!99!The!
accused!admits!that!he!committed!the!crime,!but!with!an!explanation.!Thus,!the!
constituent! elements! of! the! offence,! the! actus# reus100#and! mens# rea101,# are!
complete.102 !The! plea! of! entrapment! is! dealt! with! differently! in! different!
jurisdictions.!!
!
2.6.!Entrapment!As!A!Defence!Mechanism!
!A!defence!for!entrapment!is!granted!because!of!the!state’s!role!in!the!crime,!not!
because!the!accused!is!morally!entitled!to!relief.!!
!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!96!Squires,!Dan!(Summer!2006)!'The#Problem#with#Entrapment',!Oxford!Journal!of!Legal!Studies,#26(2),!pp.!351_376;!McClean,!J.D.!(January!1969)!‘Informers#and#Agents#Provocateurs’,!Criminal!Law!Review,#1(56),!pp.!527_537!97!.ibid!98!.ibid!99 !Michael! Stober,! ‘Persistent# Importuning# for# a# Defence# of# Entrapment’,! Chronique! de!jurisprudence,!McGill!Law!Journal,!Volume!33,!1988!pg!403!!100!physical!act!101!mental!element!102!Katz,!Lily!N.!(n.d.)!'Tailoring!Entrapment!to!the!Adolescent!Mind',!UC#Davis#Journal#of#Juvenile#Law#&#Policy,#18(1),!pp.!96_123.!
! 50!
2.6.1.!The!American!Position!
!In!the!United!States!entrapment!is!a!defence!which!finds!its!basis!in!the!maxim!
“decoys#are#permissible#to#entrap#criminals#but#not#to#create#them.”103!
!
Two!approaches!vis_à_vis!entrapment!defence!in!the!U.S.!
!
2.6.1.1.!The!Subjective!Approach!
!The! main! aim! of! the! subjective! entrapment! theory! is! to! protect! innocent!
citizens! who! would! not! have! committed! a! crime! but! for! law! enforcement!
authorities! implanting! criminal! intent.! 104 !The! central! focus! is! the!
predisposition!of! the!defendant.! The!majority! of! the! Supreme!Court! supports!
this!approach.!!
!
2.6.1.1.1.!Predisposition!
!While!the!Government!is!prohibited!from!instigating!crime,!the!crucial!question!
to! consider! is! whether! a! defendant! had! been! predisposed! to! commit! an!
offence.105!Predisposition! shows! that! the! defendant! had! the! necessary! guilty!
intent!and!was!not!lured!by!entrapment!into!committing!an!offence!that!would!
not!otherwise!have!occurred!to!him.106!As!the!court!said!in!U.S.#vs#Russell:!107!
!
!“It#(does#not)#seem#particularly#desirable#for#the#law#to#grant#complete#immunity#
from# prosecution# to# one# who# himself# planned# to# commit# a# crime,# and# then#
committed# it,# simply# because# Government# undercover# agents# subjected# him# to#
inducements#which#might#have#seduced#a#hypothetical#individual#who#was#not#so#
predisposed.”#108!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!103!United!States!vs!Healy!D.C.!Mont,!202!F!349!104!Katz,!Lily!N.!'Tailoring!Entrapment!to!the!Adolescent!Mind',!pp.!96_123.!105!Wachtel,! Julius!(1992)! 'From#morals#to#practice:#Dilemmas#of#control#in#undercover#policing',!Crime,!Law!and!Social!Change,#(18),!pp.!137_158.!106!R!vs!Loosely#and#AG’#Reference#no#3#of#2000!(2001)!UKHL!53!para!§67!107!411!US!423!(1973)!108!411!US!423!(1973)!
! 51!
This! judgment! reaffirmed! the! principle! established! in! Sorrells 109 !and!
Sherman110!that! the!entrapment!defence! focuses!on! the!pre_disposition!of! the!
defendant!to!commit!the!crime!rather!than!upon!the!conduct!of!the!government!
agent.!111!
!
In! Sorrells# vs# United# States112!Justice! Roberts! argued! that! the! purpose! of! the!
entrapment! defence! should! be! to! deter! police! misconduct.113!Therefore,! any!
predisposition!of!the!defendant! is! irrelevant.!However!this!was!not!upheld!by!
the!Court.!
!
State!Courts!use!a!variety!of!measures!to!uncover!previous!criminal!intent.!The!
following!are!non_exhaustive!examples:114!
1. The! nature! of! the! alleged! inducement,! i.e.! appeals! to! friendship! or!
sympathy! and! offers! of! excessive! sums! of! money! suggest! lack! of!
predisposition.!!
2. If! the! defendant! first! suggested! the! crime! it! shows! predisposition!
whereas! if! the! original! suggestion! was! initiated! by! the! Police!
predisposition!would!be!excluded.!!
3. A! quick! response! to! the! alleged! inducement! suggests! the! existence! of!
predisposition,!while!a!slow,!hesitant!or!reluctant!response!would!not.!!
4. Knowledge! of! the! drug! trade! and! familiarity! with! the! usual! details! of!
drug!transactions!are!relevant!to!determine!predisposition.!
5. Criminal! history! may! sometimes! suggest! previous! illegitimate!
intentions.!!
Following! this!approach!when! there! is!a! lack!of!predisposition! to!commit! the!
offence!prior!to!any!instigation,!the!accused!would!be!acquitted.115!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!109!356!U.S.!369,!78!S.Ct.!819,!2!L.ED.!848!(1958)!110!287!U.S.!435,!53!S.Ct.!210,!77!L.ED!413!(1932)!111!Choo,! Andrew! L.T.! (July! 1992)! 'Entrapment! and! Section! 78! of! PACE',!The#Cambridge#Law#Journal,#51(2),!pp.!pg236_238.!112!356!U.S.!369,!78!S.Ct.!819,!2!L.ED.!848!(1958)–!on!the!principle!of!entrapment!only,!no!drug!trafficking!was!involved!in!this!case!113!This!opinion!was!adhered!to!by!Justices!Brandeis!and!Justice!Stone!114!Choo,! Andrew! (July! 1990)! 'A! Defence! of! Entrapment',!The#Modern#Law#Review,#53(4),! pp.!453_471.!115!Michael!Stober,!‘Persistent!Importuning!for!a!Defence!of!Entrapment’,!pg!403!!
! 52!
2.6.1.1.2.!A!Defendant!Focused!Approach!
!Using! a! defendant_focused! approach,! the! Court! must! make! a! distinction!
between!a!trap!for!the!“unwary#innocent”#and!a!trap!for!the!“unwary#criminal.”!
116!This!distinction!was!applied!to!the!facts!of!Sherman117.!!
!
This!was!a!case!of!a!drug!addict!who!was!befriended!by!a!government!agent!at!
a!clinic!where!both!were!supposedly!seeking!treatment.!The!government!agent!
told!the!defendant!that!“he#was#not#responding#to#treatment”!and!claimed!to!be!
“suffering”.# The! defendant,! a! vulnerable! person,! fell! into! this! trap,! acquired!
drugs!and!sold!them!to!the!agent.!!
!
At! trial,! the!defendant! invoked!an!entrapment!defence!and!although!he!had!a!
criminal! record! the! Court! found! no! evidence! of! predisposition,! particularly!
when! assuming! that! at! the! time! he! was! trying! to! overcome! his! addiction.!
Sherman! thus! established! that! prior! crimes! are! not! the! sole!measurement! of!
predisposition.!118!
!
Justice!Frankfurter!said!that!past!crimes!do!not!forever!outlaw!the!criminal!and!
open!him! to!police!practices,! aimed!at! securing!his! repeated! conviction,! from!
which!the!ordinary!citizen!is!protected.!119!!This!applies!as!long!as!there!are!no!
other! factors! which! ground! reasonable! suspicion! that! the! defendant! is!
currently! engaged! in! criminal! activity.120!The! idea! that! when! dealing! with! a!
previous!convict!‘anything!goes’!runs!afoul!of!the!principle!of!equality!of!law.121!!
!
2.6.1.2.!The!Objective!Approach!
!The!objective!approach!focuses!on!the!morality!of!the!impugned!police!conduct!
and! its!effect!on! the! integrity!of! the!criminal! justice! system,! regardless!of! the!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!116!Katz,!Lily!N.!(n.d.)!'Tailoring!Entrapment!to!the!Adolescent!Mind',#pp.!96_123.!117!287!U.S.!435,!53!S.Ct.!210,!77!L.ED!413!(1932)!118!Katz,!Lily!N.!(n.d.)!'Tailoring!Entrapment!to!the!Adolescent!Mind',!pp.!96_123.!119!Sherman#vs#U.S.!287!U.S.!435,!53!S.Ct.!210,!77!L.ED!413!(1932)!120!R#vs#Loosely!para!29!121!Captain! Gallaway,! Robert! L.! (1980)! 'Due! process:! Objective! entrapment's! trojan! horse',!Military#Law#Review,#88(Spring),!pp.!103_135.!
! 53!
character!and!predisposition!of!the!accused.122!Following!this!approach!which!
is! only! supported! by! the! minority,! the! defendant! will! be! held! to! have! been!
‘entrapped’! if! the!governmental! involvement! in! relation! to! the! commission!of!
the! offence!was! such! that! the! need! to! protect! the! reputation! of! the! criminal!
justice!system!requires!that!the!proceedings!should!not!continue.!123!
!
The!emphasis! is! to!prevent!and!discourage! improper!police! conduct!which! is!
deemed!to!be!‘beyond#judicial#toleration’.124!Out!of!concern!for!‘the#protection#of#
its#own#functions#and#the#preservation#of#the#purity#of#its#own#temple’,! the!Court!
cannot!countenance!the!practice!of!entrapment.!125!!
!
On!the!other!hand,!in!an!opinion!of!Justice!Rehnquist126!in!Hampton#vs#US127!it!
was! emphasized! that! “police# over2involvement# in# crime#would#have# to# reach#a#
demonstrable# level# of# outrageousness# before# it# could# bar# conviction.”128#This! is!
especially! the! case#of! contraband!offences,! of!which!detection!was!difficult! in!
the!absence!of!government!undercover!involvement.129!
!
2.6.1.3.!Majority!View!Prevails!
!Through! the! latter! part! of! the! twentieth! century! the! Court! adhered! to! the!
subjective! entrapment! analysis.! In! United# States# vs# Russell130!the! defendant!
admitted! and! acknowledged! predisposition,! however! he! urged! the! Court! to!
adopt! an! alternative! theory! of! entrapment.! He! contended! that! entrapment!
applies! “regardless# of# predisposition,# whenever# the# government# supplies#
contraband#to#defendants”.!131!However!this!was!not!upheld!by!the!Court.!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!122!Michael!Stober,! ‘Persistent!Importuning!for!a!Defence!of!Entrapment’,!Volume!33,!1988!pg!404!123!Choo,!Andrew!(July!1990)!'A!Defence!of!Entrapment',!pp.!453_471.!124!.ibid!125!.ibid!126!To!which!Chief!Justice!Burger!and!Justice!White!concurred!127!425!US!484![1976]!128!425!US!484![1976]!129!Choo,!Andrew!(July!1990)!'A!Defence!of!Entrapment',!pp.!453_471.!130!!411!U.S.!423!(1973)!131!Katz,!Lily!N.!(n.d.)!'Tailoring!Entrapment!to!the!Adolescent!Mind',!pp.!96_123.!
! 54!
Similarly,! in! Hampton# vs# United# States 132 ,! whilst! disclosing! his! own!
predisposition,!the!accused!argued!that!the!government’s!conduct!violated!due!
process.! Unfortunately,! the! subjective! theory! was! reconfirmed! once! again!
whereby! the!Court!held! that! the! “petitioner’s#conceded#predisposition#rendered#
[the#entrapment]#defence#unavailable#to#him”.133!Therefore!predisposition!alone!
continues!to!exclude!entrapment.!
!
2.7.!The!Position!In!Canada!
!Unlike!in!the!United!States,!Canada’s!Supreme!Court!in!Queen#vs#Mack134!did!not!
recognize!entrapment!as!an! ‘affirmative!defence’! to!a!crime,! i.e.! the!defendant!
cannot! obtain! a! complete! acquittal.! 135 !Rather,! courts! issue! a! ‘stay! of!
proceedings’,!which!puts! the!case!on!hold! indefinitely!without! sentencing! the!
defendant!at!all.!136!Chief!Justice!Dickson!said!that!whilst!the!defendant!may!not!
merit!an!acquittal,!the!prosecution!should!not!be!eligible!for!a!conviction!due!to!
its!abuse!of!process.!!
!
As!Chief! Justice!Lamer! explained,! “the#stay#of# the#prosecution#of#the#accused# is#
the#manifestation# of# the# court’s# disapproval# of# the# state’s# conduct…the#Court# is#
primarily#concerned#with…the#maintenance#of#public#confidence#in#the#legal#and#
judicial#process…the#benefit#to#the#accused#is#really#a#derivative#one.”!
!
This!was!affirming!the!decision!of!Justice!Estey!in!R#vs#Amato137!that!the!basis!
upon!which!entrapment!is!recognized!lies!in!the!need!to!preserve!the!purity!of!
the!administration!of!justice,!not!to!advance!the!personal!rights!and!interests!of!
the!accused.!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!132!425!U.S.!484!(1976)!133!Katz,!Lily!N.!(n.d.)!'Tailoring!Entrapment!to!the!Adolescent!Mind',!pp.!96_123.!134!(1988)!2!S.C.R.!903,!10,!122!(Can.)!135!Dru! Stevenson! ‘Entrapment! and! Terrorism’! –! Boston! College! Law!Review,! Vol.! 49:125! pg!154!136!.ibid!137![1982]!2!S.C.R.!418!at!453!to!454!
! 55!
2.8.!The!Position!In!The!UK!
!The! English! courts! have! always! been! in! opposition! to! adopt! the! American!
position! on! entrapment.! According! to! Archbold138!the! fact! that! the! defendant!
would!not!have!committed!the!offence!were! it!not! for! the!activity!of!an!agent#
provocateur!is!no!defence.!!
!
2.8.1.!Improperly!Obtained!Evidence!
!The! general! rule! taken!by! the!English! courts!was! that! the! impropriety! of! the!
method!by!which!evidence!was!obtained!was! irrelevant!to! its!admissibility!as!
long!as!it!was!relevant!to!issues!in!the!trial.139!!This!approach!was!confirmed!in!
1979!in!the!landmark!judgment!of!R#vs#Sang140!where!their!Lordships!stated:!141!
!
“…there# is# no# discretion# to# refuse# to# admit# relevant# admissible# evidence# on# the#
ground# that# it# was# obtained# by# improper# or# unfair# means.# The# Court# is# not#
concerned#with#how#it#was#obtained.”142#
!
In!R#vs#Sang143!the!House!of!Lords!concluded!that!to!allow!the!trial!judge!to!use!
his! common! law! discretion! to! exclude! evidence! simply! because! it! had! been!
obtained!by!the!use!of!an!agent#provocateur!would!be! to!allow!the!defence!of!
entrapment!through!the!‘evidentiary#backdoor’.!144!
!
The! same! was! upheld! by! the! Maltese! Courts! in! Ir2Repubblika# ta’# Malta# vs#
Eugenio# sive# Genio# Gaffarena. 145 !When! there! is! “intervent# frawdoluż# u#
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!138!4th!Ed.,!para!15_74,!p.1128.!139!Richard! May! &! Steven! Powles,! ‘Criminal# Evidence’,! 5th! edition,! Sweet&Maxwell! (2006),!London!para!10_05!140!69!Cr.!App.!L.282;!(1979)!2All!E.R.1222,!HL.!141 !Criminal# Law# Defendant,# Available! at:! http://www.lawteacher.net! (Accessed:! 22nd!November!2014).!142!69!Cr.!App.!L.282;!(1979)!2All!E.R.1222,!HL.!143!.ibid!144!Steventon,!B.V.!(2001)!'Entrapment!and!undercover!operations!_!crossing!the!line!between!acceptable!and!unacceptable!police!behaviour',!Coventry#Law#Journal#,#6(2),!pp.63_70![Online].!Available! at:!http://www.coventry.ac.uk/bes/law/about%20the%20school/Pages/LawJournal.aspx!145!Court!of!Criminal!Appeal,!19th!January!1996!(not!reported)!
! 56!
ingannevoli”146#or#when!evidence!is!obtained!through!deceit,! i.e.!“ingann”147#,! it!
is! still! admissible.! The! latin! maxim# fraus# omnia# corrumpit#does! not! seem! to!
apply!in!these!instances.!!
!
Nonetheless,! Lord! Diplock! was! only! concerned! with! how! such! evidence! was!
used! by! the! prosecution! at! trial.! In! order! to! ensure! a! fair! trial,! the! court’s!
discretion!at!common!law!was!to!exclude!evidence!if!it!would!be!likely!to!have!a!
prejudicial!effect!outweighing!its!probative!value.!148!The!position!today!is!that!
all! evidence! is! admissible! as! long! as! it! does! not! deprive! the! accused! from!
receiving!a!fair!trial.!
!
2.8.1.1.!Article!6!ECHR!on!the!admissibility!of!evidence!
!The! UK! position! seems! to! follow! the! ECtHR!149!which! holds! that! in! order! to!
determine!whether!the!admission!of!unlawfully!obtained!evidence!amounts!to!
a!violation!of!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!depends!on!the!use!to!which!it!was!put!in!
the!trial.150!
!
Article!6!(1)!does!not!however!require!the!adoption!of!any!particular!rules!of!
evidence,!that!is!a!matter!for!domestic!law.!For!instance,!it!is!not!excluded!that!
unlawfully!obtained!evidence!may!be!treated!as!admissible!without!rendering!
the! trial! unfair.! There! is! no! strict! doctrine! of! ‘the! fruit! of! the! poisoned! tree’!
embodied!in!Article!6.151!What!Article!6!requires!is!that!in!all!the!circumstances!
of!the!case,!including!the!way!in!which!evidence!was!obtained,!the!proceedings!
taken!as!a!whole!should!be!fair.152!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!146!.ibid!147!with!the!exclusion!of!confessions!_!Gaffarena!148!Richard!May!&!Steven!Powles,!‘Criminal!Evidence’,!para!10_02!149!Edwards#and#Lewis#vs#the#UK!(1993)!15!E.H.R.R.!417,!para.34.;!Teixeira#de#Castro#vs#Portugal;!Veselov#and#Others#vs#Russia;!Ramanauskas#vs#Lithuania!150!Richard!May!&!Steven!Powles,!‘Criminal!Evidence’,!para!10_09!:!10_10!151!Mahoney,! Paul! (2004)! 'Right! to! a! fair! trial! in! criminal! matters! under! Article! 6! E.C.H.R',!Judicial#Studies#Institute#Journal,#4(2),!pp.!107_129.!152!.ibid!
! 57!
This! was! also! confirmed! in! the! recent! local! judgments! of!Darren# Aquilina# vs#
Onorevoli# Prim# Ministru# et 153 !and! of! Victor# Lanzon# vs# Kummissarju# tal2
Pulizija154.! In! an! allegation! of! entrapment! the! inquiry! is! not! whether! the!
accused!is!guilty,!but!whether!his!guilt!was!exposed!in!a!way!that!jolts!integrity!
and!contravenes!the!principle!of!decency!and!fair!play.!
!
2.8.2.!Two!Approaches!as!a!remedy!for!entrapment!under!English!and!
Common!Law!
!Today,!although!entrapment!is!still!not!a!substantive!defence,!English!law!has!
developed!two!remedies!for!entrapment:!
1. staying!proceedings!for!abuse!of!process;!and!!
2. excluding!evidence!under!Section!78!of!!the!PACE.155!
!
Both! share! the! same! primary! question:! whether! the! offence! would! have!
occurred! irrespective!of! the! involvement!of! the!police.!156!This!examination!of!
the! causal! link! between! the! entrapment! and! the! crime! requires! the! court! to!
assess!the!extent!of!the!police!instigation!and!the!effect!on!the!defendant’s!free!
will.!157!!
!
In!paragraph!98!of!the!Loosely!judgment,158!Lord!Steyn!stated:!
‘The#weakness#of#both#extreme#positions#leaves#only#one#principled#solution.#The#
court#has#a#discretion:# it#has# to#perform#a#balancing#exercise#…# the# judge#must#
weigh#in#the#balance#the#public# interest# in#ensuring#that#those#that#are#charged#
with# grave# crimes# should# be# tried# and# the# competing# public# interest# in# not#
conveying# the# impression# that# the# court# will# adopt# the# approach# that# the# end#
justifies#any#means.”159#
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!153!Constitutional!Court,!31st!May!2013,!72/2011/1!!154!Constitutional!Court,!29th!November!2014!155!Reed,!A.!&!Seago,!P.,!Criminal#Law!(2nd,!Sweet!&!Maxwell,)!p.284_287!156!.ibid!157!.ibid!158!(2001)!1!WLR!2060!159!.ibid!!
! 58!
2.8.2.1.!Staying!proceedings!
!In! the!case!of!a! stay! for!abuse!of!process,!police!action!must!have!caused! the!
offence!and!be!regarded!as!‘unworthy#or#shameful’.160!Unworthy!police!conduct!
should!itself!constitute!a!sufficient!ground!for!a!stay!if! it!would!have!caused!a!
reasonable! person! to! commit! the! offence.!161!If! the! defendant!would!not! have!
acted! as! such! on! their! own! volition,! a! stay! of! proceedings! will! prevent! any!
potential!procedural!unfairness!committed!on!the!defendant.!!
!
In! R# vs# Loosely!162!the! House! of! Lords! said! that! when! ordering! a! stay! and!
refusing! to! let! a! prosecution! continue,! the! court! is! not! seeking! to! exercise!
disciplinary!powers!over!the!police.163!This!notwithstanding!it!considered!that!
a!stay!of!proceedings!has!the!same!effect.!164!
!
2.8.2.1.1.!Why!is!a!Stay!of!proceedings!preferred?!
!The!House!of!Lords!in!Looseley!held!that!the!correct!remedy!for!entrapment!is!
to!stay!proceedings!as!an!‘abuse!of!process’!rather!than!excluding!evidence.!165!
The! rationale! is! that! if! proceedings! are! founded! upon! prior! illegality,!
misconduct! or! other! impropriety! by! the! executive,! a! guilty! verdict! would! be!
lacking!moral!authority!and!would!undermine! the! ‘dignity#and#integrity#of#the#
justice#system’.166!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!160!See!Latif#and#Shahzad!(1996)!1!W.L.R.!104,!HL.;!(1996)!1!All!E.R.!353!161!Reed,!A.!&!Seago,!P.,!Criminal#Law!(2nd,!Sweet!&!Maxwell,)!p.284_287!162!R.!vs!Loosely![2001]!UKHL!53!para!17!163!(2001)!UKHL!53!!164!McKay,!Simon!(9th!January!2009)!'Approaching!Allegations!of!Entrapment!Part!I',!Criminal#Law# &# Justice# Weekly,! [Online].! Available!at:http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Approaching_Allegations_Entrapment_Part_I!(Accessed:!6th!November!2014).!165!Squires,! Dan! (Summer! 2006)! 'The# Problem# with# Entrapment',! Oxford! Journal! of! Legal!Studies,#26(2),!pp.!351_376.!166!Loosely! judgment;! Squires,! Dan! (Summer! 2006)! 'The# Problem#with# Entrapment',! pp.! 351_376.!
! 59!
The!fruit!of!the!impropriety!is!in!effect!the!actual!commission!of!the!crime;!the!
appropriate! judicial! response! to! it! is! to! stay! the! proceedings! as! a! whole.167!!
Furthermore,!Lord!Carloway!also!seems!to!have!the!same!preference!!because!
in!order!to!avoid!lending!the!court’s!‘stamp!of!approval’,!a!stay!of!proceedings!
is!thus!necessitated.168!!!
!
2.8.2.1.2.!The!disadvantages!of!a!stay!
!It! is! true! that! to! admit! irregularly_obtained! evidence! would! offend! the!
community’s! sense! of! fairness! and! damage! the! reputation! ! of! the! criminal!
justice!system.!Yet!other!evidence!of!the!accused’s!wrongdoing,!which!the!state!
has!obtained!in!a!procedurally!correct!manner,!is!not!liable!to!endanger!public!
confidence! in! the! moral! legitimacy! of! the! courts’! decision_making.!169!Ending!
the! proceedings! altogether! in! such! circumstances! would! be! wholly!
inappropriate!and!just!as!likely!to!damage!confidence!in!the!administration!of!
criminal.!!
!
2.8.2.2.!Exclusion!of!Evidence!Under!Section!78!of!PACE!
!Although!Sang!has!not!been!overruled,! entrapment!per! se! still! not! a!defence,!
the!law!in!this!area!has!developed!significantly.!170!The!House!of!Lords!saw!the!
need! to! intervene! and! lay! down! some! guidelines! to! avoid! any! future!
miscarriages!of! justice! or! confusion.!The! reaction!was! Section!78!of! the!1984!
PACE! which! provided! the! courts! with! an! additional! statutory! discretion! to!
exclude! evidence! which! would! bear! adversely! on! the! fairness! of! the!
proceedings.171!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!167!Choo,! Andrew! L.T.! (July! 1992)! 'Entrapment# and# Section# 78# of# PACE',! The! Cambridge! Law!Journal,#51(2),!pp.!pg236_238.!168!Leverick,!F.!and!Stark,!F.! (2010)! 'How!do!you!solve!a!problem! like!entrapment?! Jones!and!Doyle!v!HM!Advocate',!Edinburgh#Law#Review,#14(3),!pp.!pg467_472.!169!.ibid!170!Steventon,! B.V.! (2001)! 'Entrapment# and# undercover# operations# 2# crossing# the# line# between#acceptable#and#unacceptable#police#behaviour',!Coventry!Law! Journal# ,#6(2),!pp.63_70! [Online].!Available! at:!http://www.coventry.ac.uk/bes/law/about%20the%20school/Pages/LawJournal.aspx!171!Richard!May!&!Steven!Powles,!‘Criminal!Evidence’,!para!10_01!!
! 60!
This!section!provides:!
“(1)# In# any# proceedings# the# court# may# refuse# to# allow# evidence# on# which# the#
prosecution# proposes# to# rely# to# be# given# if# it# appears# to# the# court# that,# having#
regard# to# all# the# circumstances,# including# the# circumstances# in# which# the#
evidence#was#obtained,#the#admission#of#the#evidence#would#have#such#an#adverse#
effect#on#the#fairness#of#the#proceedings#that#the#court#ought#not#to#admit#it.”172#
!
Accordingly,! it! appears! that! the! test! is! to! ask! whether! a! trial! containing!
evidence! obtained! as! a! result! of! a! particular! deceit! would! be! fair.! 173 !A!
‘significant! and! substantial’! impropriety! will! not! be! regarded! as! justifying!
exclusion! if! it! is! thought! that! it! makes! no! difference! to! the! outcome! of! the!
proceedings.! 174 !Impropriety! on! its! own! does! not! automatically! lead! to!
exclusion.175!On!the!other!hand,!bad!faith!on!the!part!of!the!police!may!justify!
exclusion! of! evidence! notwithstanding! that! there! has! been! no! impropriety! in!
obtaining!such!evidence!or!when!the!same!impropriety!is!deemed!to!have!made!
no!difference.176!
!
2.9.!Non1Recognition!Of!Defence!Of!Entrapment!In!The!UK!
!In! R.# vs# Harwood177!the! Court! of! Appeal! expressed! the! view! that! Section! 78!
could! not! be! interpreted! so! as! to! abrogate! the! rule! that! entrapment! is! not! a!
defence.178 !In! R# vs# Smurthwaite# and# Gill179 !the! Court! of! Appeal! held! that!
entrapment!through!the!use!of!an!agent#provocateur!did!not!provide!a!defence!
but!this!did!not!mean!that!Section!78!was!irrelevant.!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!172!Section!78!of!the!1984!Police!and!Criminal!Evidence!Act!!173!.ibid!para!10_19!:10_22!174!Stone,! Richard! (1995)! 'Exclusion! of! Evidence! under! Section! 78! of! the! Police! and!Criminal!Evidence!Act:!Practice!and!Principles',!Journal#of#Current#Legal#Issues,#3,!![Online].!Available!at:!http://www.ncl.ac.uk/_nlawwww/articles3/stone3.html!(Accessed:!21st!January!2015).!175!.ibid!176!.ibid;#though!not!every!trick!will!be!regarded!as!justifying!exclusion!177!(1989)!Criminal!LR!285!178!Steventon,!B.V.!(2001)!'Entrapment!and!undercover!operations!_!crossing!the!line!between!acceptable!and!unacceptable!police!behaviour',!Coventry#Law#Journal#,#6(2),!pp.63_70![Online].!Available! at:!http://www.coventry.ac.uk/bes/law/about%20the%20school/Pages/LawJournal.aspx!179!(1994)!1!ALL!ER!898!
! 61!
Lord! Nicholls! said! that! section! 78! had! reversed! Sang! on! the! admissibility! of!
evidence! obtained! unfairly.! Sang! had! been! overtaken! by! section! 78! and! the!
development! of! the! common! law! doctrine! of! abuse! of! process.! 180 !This!
notwithstanding,!the!House!of!Lords!confirmed!that!Sang!is!still!good!law.!It!is!
still! true! to! state! that! entrapment! is! not! a! substantive! defence! in! English!
criminal! law!and! that!neither!Section!78!nor!article!6!of! the!Convention!have!
elevated!entrapment!to!the!status!of!a!defence.181!
!
Notwithstanding! that! “it# is# simply# not# acceptable# that# the# state# through# its#
agents#should#lure#its#citizens#into#committing#act#forbidden#by#the#law#and#then#
seek#to#prosecute#them#for#doing#so,”!182!Lord!Nicholls!still!does!not!consider!that!
a!defence!would!be!appropriate.! Instead! it! adopted!an! ‘abuse!of!process’! rule!
similar!to!the!objective!version!of!the!entrapment!defence.183!However,!England!
now! uses! the! same! procedural! relief! mechanism! as! Canada! –! a! ‘stay! of!
proceedings’!–!rather!than!a!finding!of!no!guilt!or!dismissal!of!the!charges.184!
!
2.10.!The!leading!case!on!entrapment!in!the!UK!:!R!vs!Loosely!!and!
Attorney1General’s!Reference!No!3!of!2000185!
!These! conjoined! landmark! appeals! of! R# vs# Loosely# and# Attorney2General’s#
Reference# (no# 3# of# 2000)186!have! similar! facts.! The! fundamental! difference!
between! them!was! based! on! the! defendant!merely! being! ‘presented!with! an!
opportunity’!to!commit!a!crime,!as!in!Loosely,!and!the!defendant!!being!‘incited’!
or!‘caused’!to!commit!a!crime,!as!in!the!latter.!187!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!180!Archbold!2007,!Sweet!&!Maxwell!181!Steventon,!B.V.!(2001)!'Entrapment!and!undercover!operations!_!crossing!the!line!between!acceptable!and!unacceptable!police!behaviour',!Coventry#Law#Journal#,#6(2),!pp.63_70![Online].!Available! at:!http://www.coventry.ac.uk/bes/law/about%20the%20school/Pages/LawJournal.aspx;! R# vs#Loosely#(2001)!UKHL!53!para!120!182!(2002)!1!Crim.!App.!29,!366_67!(H.L.)!183!explicitly! rejecting! a! ‘predisposition’! rule;! Dru! Stevenson! ‘Entrapment#and#Terrorism’,! Vol.!49:125!pg!155!184!.ibid!pg!155_56!185!(2001)!1!WLR!2060;!(2001)!UKHL!53!186!.ibid#187 !Criminal# Law# Defendant,# Available! at:! http://www.lawteacher.net! (Accessed:! 22nd!November!2014).!
! 62!
Their!Lordships!in!Loosely!decided!that!the!most!important!determinant!factor!
was!whether! the!police! could!be! said! to!have! engaged! in!unacceptable! crime!
creation! rather! than! merely! providing! an! opportunity! for! the! accused! to!
commit!the!crime.!188!!
!
The! acquitted! person! in! the! Attorney_General’s! Reference! was! charged! with!
supplying! heroin! to! undercover! police! officers!who!were! offering! to! sell! him!
contraband! cigarettes.!189!!After! selling!him!such! cigarettes! at! a!bargain!price,!
the!undercover!agents! then!asked!him!whether!he! could!get! them!heroin.!He!
told!them!that!he!was!‘not#really#into#heroin’!himself,!but!he!eventually!obtained!
drugs!from!another!source!and!supplied!it!to!the!officers.!190!After!his!arrest!the!
defendant!said!that!he!had!never!supplied!heroin!before!and!that!he!had!only!
become!involved!because!the!officers!were!offering!to!sell!him!cheap!cigarettes!
and! so! he!was! doing! ‘a# favour# for#a# favour’.!191!Therefore,! the!House! of! Lords!
said! that! had! it! not! been! for! the! agents’! interference,! it! would! have! been!
unlikely!for!the!defendant!to!engage!in!selling!drugs.!!
!
In! this! Reference192 !the! House! of! Lords! felt! influenced193 !by! a! landmark!
decision!from!the!ECtHR!in!1999,!Teixeira#de#Castro#vs#Portugal,194!where!it!was!
held! that! that! use! of! evidence! obtained! by! entrapment! as! a! result! of! police!
incitement! may! deprive! a! defendant! of! the! right! to! a! fair! trial! embodied! in!
Article!6.!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!188!.ibid!189!Jerrard,!R.!(2001)!'Entrapment:!abuse!of!legal!process!for!police!to!incite!crime',!The#Times,#29th!October!!190!.ibid!191!.ibid!192!No.!3!of!2000!(2001)!UKHL!53!193!possibly!bound!194!no:!44/1997/828/1034,!ECHR!1998_VI!
! 63!
2.10.1.!The!Extent!Of!Police!Participation!
!When!entrapment!is!alleged,!the!focal!point!is!placed!upon!the!agent’s!behavior!
as! an! ordinary! member! of! the! public.! Lord! Hutton195!held! that! a! distinction!
should! be! made! between! a! person! being! lured! by! a! police! officer! into!
committing!an!offence!and!a!person!freely!taking!advantage!of!an!opportunity!
to! commit! an! offence! presented! to! him! by! the! officer.! A! drug! dealer!will! not!
voluntarily! offer! drugs! to! a! stranger,!196!unless! the! stranger! first! approaches!
him.!The!stranger!may!need!to!persist!in!his!request!for!drugs!before!they!are!
supplied.! Therefore! a! request! for! drugs,! even! if! it! be! persistent,! need! not! be!
regarded! as! luring! the! drug! dealer! into! committing! a! crime! with! the!
consequence!that!a!prosecution!against!him!should!be!stayed.!197!Otherwise,!the!
combating! of! the! illegal! sale! of! drugs! would! be! severely! impeded.198!In! my!
opinion!a!prosecution!should!not!be!stayed!where!a!police!officer!has!used!an!
inducement!which! “is#consistent#with#the#ordinary#temptations#and#stratagems#
that#are#likely#to#be#encountered#in#the#course#of#criminal#activity”.199!This! is! in!
conformity! with! the! approach! taken! by! the! United! States! Supreme! Court! in!
Sorrells#vs#United#States200!where!the!court!stated:!201!
!
“It#is#well#settled#that#the#fact#that#officers#merely#afford#opportunities#or#facilities#
for# the# commission# of# the# offence# does# not# defeat# the# prosecution.# Artifice# and#
stratagem#may# be# employed# to# catch# those# engaged# in# criminal# enterprises# ….#
The# appropriate# object# of# this# permitted# activity,# frequently# essential# to# the#
enforcement# of# the# law,# is# to# reveal# the# criminal# design;# to# expose# the# illicit#
traffic…#and#thus#to#disclose#the#would2be#violators#of#the#law.”!202!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!195!In!R#vs#Loosely!(2001)!UKHL!53!!para!102!196!.ibid!!197!.ibid!198!.ibid!199!Justice!McHugh!J!in!Ridgeway#vs#The#Queen!184!CLR!19,!92!200!(1932)!287!US!435,!441!201!(2001)!UKHL!53!!202!(1932)!287!US!435,!441!
! 64!
2.10.2.!Persistence!or!ordinary!temptations?!
!In! Loosely 203 !police! suspected! that! the! defendant! was! involved! in! drug!
trafficking.! An! undercover! agent! pursued! the! suspicion,! he! called! him! and!
requested! heroin! whereby! the! defendant! replied! in! the! affirmative.! He! was!
arrested!and!later!convicted!without!any!controversy.!!
!
Similar!to!what!it!had!decided!in!Nottingham#City#Council#vs##Amin204!the!House!
of! Lords! was! of! the! view! that! Loosely! had! not! been! ‘prevailed# upon# nor#
overborne# or# persuaded# or# pressured# or# instigated# or# incited# to# commit# the#
offence’.!205!!
!
Lord! Hoffman206!explicitly! stated! that! he! was! aware! that! ‘a# certain# degree# of#
persistence#may# be# necessary’.!He! understood! that! investigating! drug! cases! is!
not!easy!without!the!help!of!covert!policing,!and!asserted!that!sometimes!drug!
dealers!will!be!aware!of!the!police’s!interference!and!might!be!less!inclined!to!
do!business!with!a!stranger!in!apprehension!of!them.!However,!the!Court!will!
decide! on! a! case! by! case! basis! in! order! to! determine!whether! the! defendant!
acted!voluntarily!or!whether!he!was!wheedled!to!do!so.!!
!
Lord! Nicholls! identified! that! a! useful! guide! when! considering! whether! the!
conduct! of! the! police! amounted! to! incitement! or! instigation! of! crime!was! to!
ascertain! whether! the! police! did! more! than! present! the! defendant! with! an!
unexceptional! opportunity! to! commit! a! crime.! 207 !If! the! police! conduct!
preceding! the! commission! of! the! offence!was! no!more! than!might! have! been!
expected!by!others!in!the!circumstances!this!would!not!constitute!entrapment.!
If!however! it!went!beyond! this,! an!abuse!of!process!by! the!state!may!well!be!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!203!(2001)!UKHL!53!204!(2000)!1!WLR!1071!205!Steventon,!B.V.!(2001)!'Entrapment!and!undercover!operations!_!crossing!the!line!between!acceptable!and!unacceptable!police!behaviour',!Coventry#Law#Journal#,#6(2),!pp.63_70![Online].!Available! at:!http://www.coventry.ac.uk/bes/law/about%20the%20school/Pages/LawJournal.aspx!206!in!R!vs!Loosely!(2001)!UKHL!53!207!Sleight,! David! (2010)! 'The! law! regarding! entrapment',! Law# Society# Gazette,# 24th! June,!available!at!http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/the_law_regarding_entrapment_55972.fullarticle!
! 65!
established.!208!This! was! what! indeed! formed! the! basis! of! the! rejection! of!
Loosely’s!appeal.!
!
It!cannot!be!said!that!a!defendant!has!been!entrapped!if! it!can!be!proved!that!
the!police,! upon!having! reasonable! grounds! to! suspect,! have! ‘offered#no#more#
than#the#opportunity#to#express#his#existing#criminality’.!209!If! there! is! already! a!
sufficient! level! of! criminal! instinct! manifested! in! the! defendant! it! would! be!
assumed! that! he! would! have! engaged! in! that! crime! regardless! of! police!
interaction.!210!
!
The! judge! found! that! there!was! evidence! to! show! that! Looseley!was! steeped!
into! the!drug!culture!and!encouraged!the!officer,!whom!he!probably!saw!as!a!
lucrative!customer,!to!buy!more!heroin!from!him.!211!The!Court!refused!to!stay!
the! proceedings! as! an! abuse! of! the! process! of! the! court! or! to! exclude! the!
officer’s!evidence!pursuant!to!Section!78!of!PACE.!212!
!
The!judge’s!conclusion!was!that,!whilst!the!officer!presented!himself!as!an!ideal!
customer! so! far! as! a! drugs! dealer! was! concerned,! the! officer! did! not! do!
anything!other!than!present!himself!as!such,!and!accordingly!the!conduct!of!the!
officer!did!not!constitute!incitement.213!
!
2.10.3.!‘Unwary'Innocent’!vs!‘Unwary'Criminal’'and'!Shifting!Opportunity!
!In!assessing!the!weight!to!be!attached!to!the!police!inducement,!regard!is!to!be!
had!to!the!defendant’s!circumstances,!including!his!vulnerability.!214!This!is!not!
because! the! standards! of! acceptable! behavior! are! variable.! Rather,! this! is! a!
recognition!that!what!may!be!a!significant!inducement!to!one!person!may!not!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!208!.ibid!209 !Criminal# Law# Defendant,# Available! at:! http://www.lawteacher.net! (Accessed:! 22nd!November!2014).!210!.ibid!211!(2001)!UKHL!53!!para!13!212!Jerrard,!R.!(2001)!'Entrapment:!abuse!of!legal!process!for!police!to!incite!crime',!The#Times,#29th!October!!213!(2001)!UKHL!53!!214!.ibid!para!28!
! 66!
be! so! to! another.215!In! order! to! determine! whether! the! opportunity! placed!
before! them! is! ‘exceptional’,! they! would! need! to! first! find! what! would! be!
viewed!as!‘unexceptional’!or!vice!versa.!216!!
!
The! Court! has! attempted! to! assess! the! culpability! of! a! defendant! by! judging!
their!criminality,!background,!lifestyle,!environment!and!the!opportunities!they!
are!normally!presented!with.217!In!doing!this,! they!are!able!to!decide!whether!
the!police!have!enticed!an!unsuspecting,!honest!citizen!into!committing!a!crime,!
or!merely!presented!an!existing!criminal!with!an!unexceptional!opportunity!to!
do!what! he!would! have! done! anyway.!218!Therefore,! it!will! ascertain!whether!
the!police!have!‘shifted’!an!opportunity!into!an!environment!where!it!would!not!
normally!be!available,!or!upon!a!person!who!would!not!normally!be!presented!
with!that!opportunity.!219!!
!
2.11.!Maltese!position!
!In! Pulizija# vs# Emmanuel# Vella# et220 !the! Court! held! that! “Il2liġi# tagħna# ma#
tirrikonoxxi#ebda# # ‘substantive#defence’#of#entrapment,#u# f’każijiet#bħal#dawn,# il2
Qrati# tagħna#dejjem# imxew# fuq# il2ġurisprudenza# Ingliża# f’materja# ta’#proċedura#
kriminali# u# ‘Law# of# Evidence’,# ħlief# meta# ma# ġiex# provdut# xorta# oħra.”221#The!
American!exclusionary!rule!of!evidence!was!also!explicitly!excluded!in!Pulizija#
vs# Grazju# Spiteri222!whereby! it! was! held! that! “jekk# jirriżulta# illi# kien# hemm# xi#
kwalita’# ta’# entrapment,# tieħu# dan# il2fatt# in# konsiderazzjoni# għall2mitigazzjoni#
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!215!.ibid!216 !Criminal# Law# Defendant,# Available! at:! http://www.lawteacher.net! (Accessed:! 22nd!November!2014).!217!.ibid!218!.ibid!219!.ibid!220!Court!of!Criminal!Appeal,!29th!January!1987!221!.ibid;#our!law!does!not!recognize!the!defence!of!entrapment!and!unless!otherwise!provided!by! our! law,! courts! follow! English! case_law! in! matters! of! criminal! procedure! and! law! of!evidence.!222!Court!of!Magistrates!8th!March!1984!
! 67!
tal2piena,# liema#mitigazzjoni#tvarja#minn#każ#għal# ieħor,#skont# iċ2ċirkostanzi#ta’#
kull#każ.”#223!!
!
2.12.!Exercise!Of!Discretion!In!Sentencing!!
!Instigation! by! the! agent# provocateur# and! other! means! used! by! the! Police! to!
have! the! accused! entrapped! are! taken! into! consideration! to! establish! the!
degree!of! responsibility! especially!with! regards! to! sentencing.!The!Court! also!
takes!into!consideration!the!way!the!accused!has!acted!when!confronted!with!
such! situation,! in! the! sense! of! how! ready,!willing! and!predisposed! he!was! to!
commit! the! offence.! The! mitigation! in! punishment! varies! according! to! the!
circumstances!of!the!case.!!
!
In! the! U.K.,! the! Court! of! Appeal! in! the! post_Sang! case! of! R# vs# Underhill224!in!
determining!whether! the!appellant’s! sentence! should!be! reduced,! applied! the!
principle!that! ‘if!a!court!is!satisfied!that!a!crime!has!been!committed!which!in!
truth!would!!not!have!been!committed!but!for!the!activities!of!the!informer!or!
of!police!officers!concerned,!it!can,!if!it!thinks!right!so!to!do!mitigate!the!penalty!
accordingly’.!225!However! such! mitigation! does! not! impinge! on! the! guilt! or!
otherwise!of!the!accused;226!the!conviction!would!still!hold.!Section!78!of!PACE!
is!an!improvement!on!such!situation!where!entrapment!is!no!longer!taken!into!
account!only!at!the!sentencing!stage.#227#
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!223!.ibid;#!if!it!rsults!that!there!has!been!entrapment,!it!will!be!taken!into!account!with!regards!to!the! mitigation! of! sentence.! This! will! vary! from! one! case! to! another! according! to! the!circumstances.!!224!(1979)!1!Cr!App!R(S)!270!225!Choo,! Andrew! (July! 1990)! 'A! Defence! of! Entrapment',!The#Modern#Law#Review,#53(4),! pp.!453_471.!226!!McEvilly!(1974);!Cross!on!Evidence!5th!edition!pgs!35_36!227!Choo,! Andrew! (July! 1990)! 'A! Defence! of! Entrapment',!The#Modern#Law#Review,#53(4),! pp.!453_471;!R!vs!Sang![1980]!AC!402,!446!per!Lord!Fraser!
! 68!
2.12.1.!Pulizija!(Spettur!John!Mifsud)!vs!Emmanuel!Vella!et228!
!In!this!case!the!defendants!said!that!the!controlled!delivery!carried!out!by!the!
Police! was! actually! an! entrapment.! They! alleged! that! they! had! been!
continuously! pressured! ! to! procure! drugs! by! the! Police,! such! that! “…ġew#
imqabbda#mill2Pulizija#mhux#maqbuda#mill2Pulzija.”!229#!
!
The!prosecution!held! that! the!Police!did!not! abuse! from! the!weakness!of! the!
defendant! “biex# wara# li# jwaqqgħuha# u# tipprokuralhom# id2droga,# iduru# kontra#
tagħha.”#When!Lydia!Cauchi230!was!asked!whether!she!could!supply!drugs,!she!
did! so!within!2!days!whereby! she!personally!delivered!200!packets! in! a! van.!
“Speed# of# delivery# coupled# with# an# elaborately# safeguarded# system# of# delivery#
precludes#entrapment.”231#Therefore!this!was!enough!to!show!that!she!willingly!
committed!the!crime.!!
!!
Notwithstanding!that!the!court!established!guilt!of!the!accused,!their!sentence!
was!mitigated!for!two!reasons:!
1. due!to!the!way!the!evidence!against!them!was!brought!forward;!and!
2. to!slightly!relieve!any!sense!of!injustice!suffered!by!them.!!
#
The!main!criticism!is!that!in!some!cases!mitigation!of!punishment!alone!is!not!
enough!of!a!remedy!because!one!is!still!declared!guilty!and!is!imprisoned.!The!
prosecution! usually! seeks! to! obtain! a! conviction,! thus!mitigation! in! sentence!
will!not!stop!them!from!using!the!same!method!of!detection,!even!when!their!
technique!is!not!justified.!!
!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!228!Court!of!Criminal!Appeal!(Inferior!Jurisdiction),!29th!January!1987!229!.ibid#!230!one!of!the!defendants!231!People#vs#Toler!(1962)!
! 69!
2.13.!Criminal!Responsibility!
!In! the! above_mentioned! judgment 232 ,! albeit# that! there! seemed! to! be!
entrapment,!a!complete!acquittal!would!have!neither!been!suitable!nor!fair!on!
the! justice! system! because! their! guilt! was! established! irrespective! of! the!
entrapment.! Mere! instigation! does! not! exonerate! the! accused! from! criminal!
responsibility,! though! it! might! and! will! be! taken! into! consideration! when! it!
comes!to!sentencing.!
!
In! the#Gaffarena# judgment233!the! Court! of! Criminal! Appeal! held! that!when! an!
individual! commits! an! offence! due! to! the! instigation! of! an!agent#provocateur#
our! law! does! not! contemplate! exoneration! or! exemption! from! criminal!
responsibility! as! long! as! the!Police!manage! to! prove! that! such! individual! has!
acted!as!such!voluntarily,!“aġixxa#xjentement.”#This!would!show!that!his!ability!
to! distinguish! between!what! is! good! and!what! is! bad! and!what! is! criminally!
wrong! or! illegal! has! not! been! hindered.! Thus! for! exemption! to! kick! in! there!
must!be! “l’incapacita’#di# intendere#e’#di#volere”234#accompanied!with!good! faith!
on!the!part!of!the!accused.!Therefore!it!is!important!that!“l2element#psikiku#tar2
reat#kriminali#ikun#eskluż”#in!order!for!an!accused!to!be!exempted!from!criminal!
responsibility.!
!
2.14.!Conclusion!
!When!there!is!nothing!to!suggest!that!without!the!intervention!of!the!police!the!
offence!would!still!have!been!committed,!it!means!that!police!officers!had!acted!
as! agents# provocateurs# enticing! and! instigating! the! defendant! leading! to!
entrapment.!Entrapment!therefore!comes! into!play!as!soon!as!Police! instigate!
the!defendant!to!carry!out!an!illegitimate!endeavor.!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!232!Pulzija#vs#Emmanuel#Vella#et,#Court!of!Criminal!Appeal,!29th!January!1987!233!Court!of!Criminal!Appeal!(Superior!Jurisdiction),!16th!January!1996,!(not!reported)!234!when!the!requisite!will!and!understanding!are!missing.!!
! 70!
The! issue!of!how!a! claim!of! entrapment! should!be!dealt!with!by! the! criminal!
courts! has! divided! the! international! legal! community! with! different!
jurisdictions!regarding!it!as:!235!
• a!substantive!defence!as!in!the!federal!jurisdiction!of!the!US;236!!
• a! matter! that! should! lead! to! a! stay! in! proceedings! as! in! England,237!
Wales238!and!Canada;239!
• a!matter!that!should!lead!to!the!exclusion!of!the!evidence!obtained!as!in!
England,! Australia,240!New! Zealand241!and! Singapore242.! Provided! that!
for! this! remedy! to! be! offered! there! must! have! been! an! unjustifiable!
illegality! on! the!part! of! the! investigators,! a! significant!prejudice! to! the!
accused!or!a!real!and!appreciable!risk!that!the!conduct!of!investigators!
will!undermine!the!administration!of!justice.!243!
!
Traditionally,! Scots! law! has! dealt! with! the! issue! as! one! of! exclusion! of!
evidence,244!but! in!Brown#vs#HM#Advocate245it!was! suggested! that! the! correct!
approach!was!to!stay!proceedings!to!preserve!the!moral!integrity!of!the!court!
system.! In! Jones# and#Doyle# vs#HM#Advocate246,! a!majority! of! the! appeal! court!
held! that! a! stay! in!proceedings! is! the!preferable!approach,!notwithstanding!a!
strongly! argued! dissent! from! Lord! Carloway,!who! considered! that! precedent!
prevented!any!approach!other!than!the!exclusion!of!evidence.!247!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!235!Leverick,! F.! and! Stark,! F.! (2010)! 'How# do# you# solve# a# problem# like# entrapment?# Jones# and#Doyle#v#HM#Advocate',!Edinburgh!Law!Review,#14(3),!pp.!pg467_472.!236!Sorrells#vs#United#States!287!US!435![1932],!237!AG’s#Reference#(No.3#of#2000)!(2001)!UKHL!53!238!R#vs#Looseley![2001]!1!WLR!2060!239!R#vs#Mack!(1988)!2!SCR!903!240!Ridgeway#vs#The#Queen![1995]!184!CLR!19!241!Police#vs#Lavalle![1979]!1!NZLR!45!242!Law#Society#of#Singapore#vs#Tan#Guat#Neo#Phyllis![2007]!SGHC!207!243 !Chernok,! A.V.! (2011)! 'Entrapment# under# controlled# operations# legislation:# A# Victorian#perspective',!pp.!361_375.!244!Marsh#vs# Johnston! 1959! SLT! (Notes)! 28,!Cook#vs#Skinner,#MacDonald#vs#Skinner! 1977! JC! 9;!Weir#vs#Jessop!1991!JC!146!245!2002!SLT!809!246![2009]!HCJAC!86,!2010!GWD!20_391;!however!this!related!to!theft!and!not!drug!trafficking!247!Leverick,! F.! and! Stark,! F.! (2010)! 'How# do# you# solve# a# problem# like# entrapment?# Jones# and#Doyle#v#HM#Advocate',!pp.!pg467_472.!
! 71!
In!R#vs#Mack248,!the!Supreme!Court!held!that!in!cases!of!entrapment,!two!parties!
enter!the!court!with!unclean!hands:!the!accused!who!has!willingly!committed!a!
criminal!offence,! and! the!police!who! improperly! instigated! the!crime.!Neither!
the! accused! nor! the! state! has! the!moral! standing! to! demand! their! preferred!
outcome!–!be!it!acquittal!or!conviction.!Various!jurisdictions!allow!defendants!
to! seek! relief! which! range! from! a! complete! defence! leading! to! acquittal! to! a!
mere!mitigation!in!punishment!where!guilt!is!still!established.!!!
!
A!person!who!has!committed!an!offence!as!a!result!of! incitement! is!obviously!
less!blameworthy!and!less!dangerous!than!an!ordinary!offender,!however,!this!
diminished!culpability!will!not!necessarily!lead!to!an!acquittal.249!!
!
In! Loosely! the! House! of! Lords! said! that! “there# would# be# a# violation# of# the#
concept# of# fairness# if# a# defendant# were# to# be# convicted# and# punished# for#
committing# a# crime# which# he# only# committed# because# he# had# been# incited,#
instigated,# persuaded,# pressurized# or# wheelded# into# committing# it# by# a# law#
enforcement#officer.”#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!248!(1988)!2!S.C.R.!903,!10,!122!(Can.)!249!Choo,! Andrew! (July! 1990)! 'A! Defence! of! Entrapment',!The#Modern#Law#Review,#53(4),! pp.!453_471.!
! 72!
Chapter!!3!!:!!THE!RIGHT!TO!A!FAIR!TRIAL!UNDER!ARTICLE!
6!OF!THE!ECHR!WITH!SPRECIAL!REFERENCE!TO!THE!
GENERAL!PRINCIPLES!ESTABLISHED!BY!THE!EUROPEAN!
COURT!OF!HUMAN!RIGHTS!ON!ENTRAPMENT!AND!ITS!
MAIN!JUDGMENTS!
!
"Respect# the# human# rights# of# people# who# use#drugs.#Abolish#abusive#practices#carried#out#in#the#name#of#treatment#that#contravene#HR#standards#and# norms# that# remove# the# right# to# self2determination."250!
!
3.1.!The!Criminal!Limb!Of!The!Right!To!A!Fair!Trial!
!The!rule!of!law!demands!the!existence!of!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!in!all!criminal!
proceedings.!The!right!to!a!fair!trial!is!absolute!and!cannot!be!limited.251!Article!
6! is! not! subject! to! any! limitations,! concessions! or! exemptions.! This!
notwithstanding,! the! procedural! requirements! may! not! always! be! the! same;!
they!will!vary!according!to!the!circumstances!of!the!case.!The!right!is!concerned!
with! procedural! fairness,! rather! than! with! the! substantive! decision! of! the!
court.252!!
Article! 6! of! the! Convention! imposes! on! the! member! states,! both! a! negative!
obligation! not! to! punish! anyone! without! a! fair! trial;! as! well! as! a! positive!
obligation!to!establish!a!court!system!which!upholds!this!right!and!ensure!that!
nobody!is!penalized!without!a!fair!trial.253!Due!to!the!fact!that!the!punishment!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!250!Global!Commission!on!Drug!Policy!2011!251 https://www.liberty_human_rights.org.uk/human_rights/what_are_human_rights/human_rights_act/article_6_right_fair_hearing!252 http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Fairtrialandfairhearingrights.aspx!253!http://www.equalityhumanrights.com!!
! 73!
for!criminal!offences! is! the!potential! loss!of! freedom!and! liberty,!Article!6!§!2!
and!6!§!3!offer!supplementary!safeguards.!!!
!
3.2.!Presumption!Of!Innocence!–!Article!6!§!2!
The!presumption!of!innocence!necessitates!that!the!court!must!not!initiate!the!
case!with!a!prejudiced!frame!of!mind!that!the!accused!has!actually!committed!
the!offence!with!which!he!is!being!charged.!Hence,!this!presumption!illustrates!
how! the! accused! should! be! treated! throughout! the! entire! proceedings,! right!
from!its!commencement!until!the!final!conviction!or!acquittal.!However,!how!is!
the! accused! to! be!presumed! innocent!when! it!was! the! executive! police! itself,!
through!its!undercover!agents!who!witnessed!the!drug!trafficking!taking!place!
or! worse,! when! through! its! agents! provocateurs# they! lead! the! applicant! to!
actually!supply!drugs?!Is!not!that!a!breach!in!itself?!It! is!true!that!the!accused!
committed! the! offence,! and! hence! is! guilty, 254 !however! how! can! one! be!
presumed!to!be!innocent!until! found!to!be!guilty!if!one!was!incited!to!commit!
an! offence.! One’s! innocence! is! tempered! with! as! from! the! beginning! of! the!
investigation.!!
!
3.2.1!The!Privilege!Against!Self1Incrimination!
A!branch!stemming!from!the!presumption!of!innocence!is!the!privilege!against!
self_incrimination,!albeit!not!explicitly!mentioned!in!the!text!of!the!Convention.!!!
Judge! Martens,! in! his! dissenting! opinion! in! Saunders255#together! with! Judge!
Kuris,! defines! the! privilege! as! ‘the# right#not# to# be# obliged# to#produce# evidence#
against#oneself’.256!How! can! the! accused!be! free! from! self_incrimination!when!
he! himself! falls! into! the! trap! of! the! police! and! commits! the! offence?! Isn’t! he!
incriminating!himself?!It!is!true!that!the!accused!may!opt!out!of!giving!evidence!
during! his! trial,! due! to! his! right! to! remain! silent.! However! the! prosecution!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!254!and!in!most!cases!they!admit!their!guilt!255!Saunders#vs#the#United#Kingdom,#no.!!19187/91!256!.ibid#
! 74!
should! not! pursue! to! substantiate! their! accusations! by! resorting! to! evidence!
that!has!been!obtained!through!schemes!of!pressure,!coercion!or!harassment,!
evidence! which! would! obviously! cause! problems! and! put! shame! on! the!
prosecution.!!
!
3.3.!Minimum!Guarantees!
!As!a!minimum!guarantee!during!criminal!proceedings,! the!accused!must!have!
these!procedural!requisites:!
!
3.3.1.!The!Right!To!Have!Adequate!Time!And!Facilities!1!Article!6!§!3!(b)!
For!the!purpose!of!planning!his!defence,!this!right!also!includes!a!chance!for!the!
accused!to!familiarize!himself!with!the!outcome!of!the!investigations!during!the!
proceedings.!Merely!having!adequate! time!and! facilities! to!prepare!a!defence,!
but! then! certain! evidence! is! not! made! available! to! the! accused! hinders! him!
from!sufficiently!defending!himself.!!
Such!a! right!must! always!be! read!within! the! context!of! the! ‘equality!of! arms’!
rule.!!
3.3.1.1.!The!Principle!Of!Equality!Of!Arms!!
!In!a!criminal!trial,!a!fair!hearing!necessitates!acknowledgment!of!the!interests!
of! the!suspect!who!later!becomes!the!accused,! the!victim!and!society!at! large.!
The!principle!of!‘equality!of!arms’!should!be!esteemed!in!all!proceedings!during!
a!hearing.!Such!principle!entails!that!both!the!defence!and!the!prosecution!must!
be! allowed! an! equitable! possibility! to! bring! their! case! forward! in! a! setting!
whereby!none!of!the!parties!would!be!disadvantaged!when!compared!to!their!
opponent.!!
!
Having!said!that,!being!in!the!dock,!the!accused!is!always!in!a!disadvantageous!
position!when!compared!to!the!prosecution.!The!prestige!of! the!State!and!the!
! 75!
accusations! and! attacks! against! the! status! of! the! accused! provides! for! an!
unequal!setting.!
!
3.3.1.2!The!Principle!Of!Adversarial!Proceedings!!
The!principle!of! equality!of! arms! implicitly!entails! the! fundamental! right! that!
the! criminal! proceedings! should! be! adversarial.! This!means! that! the! defence!
and!the!prosecution!must!be!given!the!prospect!to!have!acquaintance!of!all!the!
evidence! presented! by! the! other! party! and! further! be! in! a! position! to!make!
statements,!observations!and!remarks!on!that!particular!evidence.!!
There! is!only!a! fine! line!which!distinguishes!both!principles! from!each!other.!
The! principle! of!equality#of#arms#deals!with! the! equilibrium! that! should! exist!
between! the!parties!during! the!proceedings,!whereas! the! right! to! adversarial!
proceedings! refers! to! the! opportunity! that! the! parties! have! to! challenge! the!
evidence!brought!forward!by!the!other!party.!!
3.3.2.!The!Right!To!Defend!Oneself!And!To!Have!The!Assistance!Of!Counsel!
–!Article!6!§!3!(c)!And!The!Right!To!Cross1Examine!Prosecution!Witnesses!
–!Article!6!§!3!(d)!
The!right!guaranteed!under!Article!6!§3!(c)! is!extremely!valuable!because!the!
accused! will! have! the! opportunity! to! defend! himself! against! the! accusations!
brought! against! him! and! would! be! in! a! position! to! bring! forward! evidence!
which! negates! such! accusations.! ! Yet,! if! the! accused! is! not! allowed! to! have!
access! to! all! the! evidence,! he! would! not! be! proficient! to! defend! himself,!
irrespective!of!having!the!best!access!to!the!finest!legal!counsel.!!
The! right! to! cross_examine! prosecution! witnesses! would! normally! require!
evidence!to!be!given!in!person!at!the!trial,!so!that!the!reliability!and!credibility!
of! the! witness! can! be! tested.!257!! As! a! general! principle! all! evidence!must! be!
produced! during! the! trial! in! the! presence! of! the! accused.! However,! special!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!257 http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Fairtrialandfairhearingrights.aspx!
! 76!
methods!to!protect!a!witness!may!be!permissible!if!it!is!strictly!necessary!to!use!
them.258!In!undercover!cases,!the!identity!of!the!undercover!agent!is!usually!not!
disclosed,!but! if! the!accused! is! still! allowed! the!opportunity! to! cross_examine!
him,! this!would!not!constitute!a!breach!of! the!right! to!a! fair! trial.!This!means!
that!a! statement!made!by!any!witness!need!not!necessarily!be!made! in! court!
and!in!public!in!order!to!be!admitted!as!evidence!during!the!trial.!!
As!long!as!the!accused!is!given!appropriate!and!suitable!chance!to!contest!and!
analyse!a!witness!who!testified!against!him,!his!rights!would!be!safeguarded.!It!
is! irrelevant!when! the! defendant!makes! his! challenge,! that! is!whether! at! the!
same! time!when! the!witness!made! his! statement! or! at! a! future! phase! of! the!
proceedings.259!However,! “where# a# conviction# is# based# solely# or# to# a# decisive#
degree#on#depositions# that#have#been#made#by#a#person#whom# the#accused#has#
had# no# opportunity# to# examine# or# to# have# examined,# whether# during# the#
investigation#or#at#the#trial,# the#rights#of# the#defence#are#restricted#to#an#extent#
that#is#incompatible#with#the#guarantees#provided#by#Article#6.”!260!
!
3.3.2.1.!Absent!And!Anonymous!Witnesses!–!Confrontation!!
Unfortunately,! this! part! of! the! right! to! a! fair! trial! is! limited.! In! most! drug!
trafficking! cases,! where! undercover! agents! take! part! in! the! operation,! the!
authorities!would!prefer! them!to!remain!unknown.!Therefore,! such!a!witness!
would! testify! during! the! investigation! stage! but! is! not! brought! forward! to!
testify! viva_voce! at! the! trial.! In! itself,! the! taking! of! such! evidence! is! not! in!
breach!of!Article!6.! In! fact! testimonies! of!witnesses!during!pre_trial! stages!of!
the!proceedings!are!read!in!court.!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!258.ibid!!259!Asch#v.! Austria,! 26! Apr! 1991,! Series! A! no.! 203,! (1993)! 15! EHRR! 597,! §! 27;! see! also! Van#Mechelen#and#others#v.!Netherlands,!23!Apr!1997,!Reports!1997_III,!691,!(1998)!25!EHRR!647,!§!51!260!Birutis#and#others#v.!Lithuania,!nos.!47698/99!and!48115/99,!28!Mar!2002,!§!29;!see!also!e.g.!Van#Mechelen#and#others#v.!Netherlands,!23!Apr!1997,!Reports!1997_III,!691,! (1998)!25!EHRR!647,!§!55;!
! 77!
In!Lüdi%vs%Switzerland,!261!the!Court!accepted!limitations!in!favour!of!a!witness!
who!was!an!undercover!agent,!but!not!to!the!extent!that!he!shouldn’t!be!tested!
at! all.! The! applicant! knew! the! agent’s! face,! as! he!had!met!him!before! several!
times,! so! that! he! could! confront! him! at! trial! without! his! identity! being!
revealed.262!!
!
3.4.!Conclusion!On!Minimum!Guarantees!
!The! phrase! “minimum! rights”! denote! that! the! rights! mentioned! under!
paragraph! 3! are! not! exhaustive,! such! that! a! trial! may! still! be! deemed! to! be!
unfair!by!the!ECtHR,!notwithstanding!that!it!guaranteed!such!minimum!rights.!
The! domestic! courts! are! further! encouraged! to! give! more! guarantees! to! the!
accused!to!additionally!prevent!a!violation!of!the!right!to!a!fair!hearing.!!
!
3.5.!Additional!Safeguards!
!
3.5.1.!The!Giving!Of!Reasons!
The!court!must!further!give!reasons!for! its! judgment!–!therefore!it!must!state!
on! the!basis!of!which! it! is! convicting!or!acquitting! the!accused;! the! judgment!
must! be! motivated.! If! a! plea! of! entrapment! is! raised,! the! Court! must! give!
reasons!why!it! is!vexatious!or!why!it!accepted!it!or!how!it!has!concluded!that!
there!was!no!entrapment!at!all.!The!duty! to!give! reasons!does!not! imply! that!
every! single! ! argument! brought! forward! by! both! parties! would! require! the!
court! to! give! exhausting! reasons!why! it! agrees,! accepts! or! disregards! it.! The!
onus!to!give!reasons!also!finds!its!validation!in!the!right!to!be!heard,!the!right!to!
have!the!judgment!reviewed!by!a!higher!court!and!the!general!principle!of!the!
rule!of!law.!A!reasoned!judgment!will!also!allow!the!administration!of!justice!to!
be!subject!to!public!scrutiny.!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!261!Lüdi%v.!Switzerland,!no.!12433/86,!15!June!1992,!Series!A!no.!238,!(1993)!13!EHRR!173,!§§!45_!50.!262!.ibid!
! 78!
3.5.2.!Have!A!Conviction!And!Sentence!Reviewed!By!A!Higher!Court!!
!Review!does!not!mean!that!the!higher!court!is!to!give!its!sign!of!approval!of!the!
decision! of! the! first! court.! It!must! be! able! to! delve! into! the!matters! again! to!
ascertain!why!the!first!court!came!to!that!conclusion!and!must!be!in!a!position!
to!remedy!a!procedural!defect!from!an!earlier!stage!of!the!proceedings.263!The!
court!inquiring!into!the!appeal!must!be!in!a!position!to!overturn!the!conviction,!
and!more!than!that,!it!must!be!willing!and!not!ashamed!to!use!such!power.!!
!
3.6.!The!Use!Of!Special!Investigative!Techniques!
!The! ECtHR264!has! acknowledged! that! it! is! a! necessity! for! the! authorities! to!
resort! to! special! investigative! techniques,!particularly! in!organised! crime!and!
drug!trafficking!cases.!The!use!of!controlled!and!undercover!operations!do!not!
constitute! a! breach! of! the! right! to! a! fair! trial.! Due! to! the! enormous! risk! of!
incitement! that! they!may! cause,! undercover! agents! must! be! subject! to! well_
defined!constraints!and!safeguards.!
!
If!the!actions!of!the!undercover!agent!constituted!entrapment,!and!the!evidence!
acquired!as!a!result!was!used!against!the!applicant!in!the!criminal!proceedings!
brought! against! him,! the! Court! will,! as! it! did!many! times,! find! a! violation! of!
Article!6!§!1!of!the!ECHR.265!!
!
3.7.!How!And!When!Is!A!Human!Rights!Application!Deemed!To!Be!
Admissible!To!Be!Heard!Before!The!European!Court!of!Human!
Rights?!
!When!an!applicant!complains!that!his!rights!under!Article!6!of!the!Convention!
have!been!violated!because:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
263!Dovydas! Vitkauskas! Grigoriy!Dikov,! ‘Protecting# the# right# to#a# fair# trial#under# the#European#Convention#on#Human#Rights’,!Council!of!Europe,!Strasbourg!2012,!pg!9!!
264!Teixeira#de#Castro#vs#Portugal;#Lüdi$vs$Switzerland;$Ramanauskas$vs$Romania!265!Ramanauskas#vs#Lithuania!§73!
! 79!
1. he!had!been!unfairly!condemned!of!drug!trafficking! !
!
2. the! trafficking! had! actually! been! provoked! by! undercover! agents;! and!
!
3. his! ! plea! of! entrapment! had! not! been! suitably! scrutinized! during! the!
domestic!proceedings,! !
!
the!Strasbourg!Court!will!ask!a!set!of!questions!before!it!hears!the!case.!From!
their!answers!as!well!as!from!the!evidence!and!documents!brought!forward!by!
the! applicant! and! the! Government! of! the!member! state! concerned,! it! will! be!
able! to! determine!whether! the! complaint! is! admissible! to! be! heard! before! it!
actually!examines!the!material!to!ascertain!whether!there!has!been!a!violation!
of!the!applicant’s!right!under!Article!6!of!the!Convention.!The!ECtHR266!will!try!
to:!
!
1. determine! if! the! information! possessed! by! the! police! came! from! a!
verifiable! source! unconnected! with! the! individuals! involved! in! the!
undercover! operation;267!whether! the! police! had! preliminary! evidence!
regarding!the!applicant’s!pre_existing!criminal!intent!and!hence!whether!
the! police! had! reasonable! motivations! for! mounting! the! undercover!
operation.!The!ECtHR!will!further!analyse!if!the!domestic!courts!had!in!
fact!evaluated!the!motives!why!the!operation!had!been!mounted!and!the!
magnitude!of!police!contribution!to!the!offence;! !
!
2. establish! whether! the! undercover! method! or! technique! used! to!
investigate!the!offence!amounts!to!an!entrapment!and!will!also!ascertain!
if!the!undercover!agent!encouraged!the!applicant!such!as!to!instigate!the!
commission!of! the!offence!or! if! the!applicant! felt!himself!pressured!by!
the!same!agent!to!commit!the!offence;! !
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!266!as!shown!in!Aleksay#Vladimirovich#Ivanstov#vs#Russia!(dec),!no!:!10192/09!!267!Vanyan#vs#Russia,!no.!53203/99,!§!49!
! 80!
3. discover! if! the! method! approving! the! controlled! delivery! was! well_
defined! and! predictable! and! whether! the! controlled! delivery! or! test!
purchase!was!subject!to!another!autonomous!regulation;! !
!
4. discern!whether! the!applicant!was!allowed! to!make!his! case!on!all! the!
points! he! had! complained! about! and! whether! he! was! provided! with!
suitable!procedural!safeguards!allowing!him!to!advance!his!complaint!of!
entrapment!before!the!domestic!courts.!It!will!also!look!into!whether!the!
complaint!of!entrapment!was!assessed!in!a!comprehensive,!adversarial!
and!thorough!fashion;! !
!
5. look! into! whether! all! the! pertinent! information,! especially! that!
concerning!the!supposed!suspicions!about!the!applicant!was!put!directly!
before!the!national!court!so!as!to!make!sure!that!the!latter!had!access!to!
the!entire!file!concerning!the!undercover!operation!against!the!applicant!
even! to! the!events! taking!place!prior! to! the! controlled!delivery!or! test!
purchase;! !
!
6. confirm! if! the! undercover! agents! were! heard! before! the! court! and!
whether!they!were!cross_examined!by!the!defence!team!of!the!applicant.!!
#
3.8.!The!Main!Judgments!Which!Are!Cited!In!Later!Judgments!
!The! 2!main! judgments! of! the! Court! in! Strasbourg! vis_à_vis! the! theme! of! this!
thesis!are!:! !
1. Lüdi%vs#Switzerland268;!and!! !
!
2. Teixeira#de#Castro#vs#Portugal269#
!
The! principles! established! in! both! judgments! have! been! cited! and! respected!
whole_heartedly!in!later!applications!to!the!same!Court.!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!268!no!:!12433/86,!ECHR!1992_VI!269!no:!44/1997/828/1034,!ECHR!1998_VI!
! 81!
3.8.1.#Lüdi#vs!Switzerland270!
!Upon! receiving! information! from! the! German! police! that! the! applicant! was!
planning!to!purchase!drugs!from!Switzerland,!the!investigating!judge!opened!a!
preliminary! investigation! against! him.! The! same! judge! authorized! an!
undercover!police!officer,!T,!to!act!as!a!potential!cocaine!purchaser!after!being!
reminded! of! the! parameters! which! he! must! not! exceed.! The! applicant! was!
approached!on!several!occasions!until!the!latter!was!arrested!and!charged!with!
drug!trafficking.!!
!
In!order!to!secure!the!anonymity!of! the!undercover!agent,! the!domestic!court!
declined!to!call!T!as!a!witness.!It!held!that!the!applicant’s!intention!of!supplying!
large!quantities!of!drugs!independently!of!the!agent’s!involvement!was!evident!
from! the! reports! drawn! up! by! the! agent! himself! as! well! as! from! telephone!
recordings.! The! Court! of! Appeal! refused! to! summon! the! same! agent! as! a!
witness,! claiming! that! his! reports! were! corroborated! with! other! evidence!
produced! by! the! prosecution.! The! judge! concluded! that! Mr.! Lüdi! “had#persistently…and#on#his#own#initiative#attempted#to#carry#out#a#drugs#deal…”271#
#
The!ECtHR!maintained!that!provided!that!the!undercover!agents!investigate!the!
illicit!activity!in!a!predominantly!passive!manner!and!without!using!their!own!
influence! to! arouse! willingness! to! commit! the! act! and! induce! criminal!
conduct 272 !their! use! is! permissible.! Due! to! their! nature,! investigation! of!
suspected!drug!trafficking!offences!are!mostly!possible!through!the!use!of!such!
agents.!!
!
Since!giving!away!the! identity!of! the!agent!would!mean!that!he!can!no! longer!
act!as!an!undercover!agent,! it!would!be!up! to! the!court! in!question! to!decide!
what!power,!if!any,!can!be!ascribed!to!the!written!statements!of!an!undercover!
agent!who!has!not!been!physically!present!before!the!court.!!
#
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!270!no!:!12433/86,!ECHR!1992_VI!!271!.ibid!§!18!!272!Article!171b!of!the!Berne!Code!of!Criminal!Procedure!(StrV).!
! 82!
The!applicant!complained!of!a!breach!of!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!maintaining!that!
he!was!divested!from!the!opportunity!to!clarify!to!what!extent!T’s!actions!had!
prejudiced!his!behavior.!He!claimed!that!the!domestic!courts’!failure!to!call!T!as!
a! witness! prohibited! them! from! creating! their! own! judgment! on! the! latter’s!
credibility.!However,! the!Government!said!that!the!applicant’s!sentencing!was!
not!solely!based!on!T’s!reports;! the!domestic!courts!had!relied!heavily!on!the!
admission!he!had!made!before!proceedings!had!even!started.!!
!
The! ECtHR! found! that! the! applicant’s! rights! of! defence! had! been! severely!
restricted!and!had!thus!not!enjoyed!a!fair!trial.!“The#mere#reading#of#the#agent’s#
reports,#without#the#agent#being#called#as#a#witness,#had#prejudicied#the#exercise#
of#the#rights#of#the#defence…”273#The!Court!said!that!the!applicant!was!aware!of!
the!physical!appearance!of! the!agent!because!he!had!met!him!multiple! times,!
therefore! it!was! still!possible! for! the!national! courts! to! summon!him!without!
revealing! his! true! identity.! As! a! witness,! he! could! have! testified! whilst! still!
having!his!anonymity!shielded!from!the!public.!!
#
The!violation!was!therefore!due!to!the!fact!that!the!applicant!was!not!allowed!
to!examine!or!carry!out!a!confrontation!vis_à_vis!!the!principle!witness.!He!was!
deprived!of!his!own!right! to! cross_examine!witnesses!giving!evidence!against!
him.!
!
In! a! partly! dissenting! opinion,! Judge! Matscher! believed! that! the! use! of!
undercover! agents! is! regularly! the! only! method! that! makes! it! promising! to!
detect! criminal! gangs.! However,! he! said! that! notwithstanding! that! even! a!
criminal! has! a! right! to! a! fair! trial,! in! this! instance! the! applicant! admitted! the!
drug!trafficking!with!which!he!was!accused!of.!Consequently,!he!added!that!the!
presence! of! T! as! a! witness! did! not! contribute! to! the! breach! alleged! by! the!
defendant.!!
!
I! tend! to!disagree!because! the!Swiss! courts!had! the!possibility!of!hearing! the!
evidence!of!the!undercover!agent!in!a!way!which!circumvented!the!disclosure!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!273!Lüdi#vs#Switzerland!§!20!
! 83!
of! identity.!Had!they!done!so!there!would!not!have!been!any!allegation!of! the!
breach!of!Article!6!of!the!Convention.!
!
3.8.2.!Teixeira!de!Castro!vs!Portugal274!
The!judgment!of!Teixeira#de#Castro#vs!Portugal275#represents!the!revolutionary!
landmark!on! the!ECtHR’s!assessments!about!police!pressure!and!entrapment.!
Undercover!police!were!monitoring!X,!a!drug!user,!in!order!to!try!to!identify!his!
supplier.! They! asked! to! buy! several! kilograms! of! hashish,! however! X! was!
unable! to! find! them! a! supplier.!When! they! realized! that! that! particular! drug!
was! not! available! they! asked! for! heroin! instead.! X!mentioned! Y,!who! in! turn!
referred!to!the!applicant!as!a!person!who!might!know!a!supplier.!The!officers!
together!with!X! and!Y!went! to! the! applicant’s! house,! gave! him! the!necessary!
money! to! buy! 20! grams! of! heroin! and! he!made! the! purchase! for! them! from!
another! individual.! Upon! giving! them! the! drugs,! the! agents! identified!
themselves!!as!police!officers!and!arrested!him.!!
Before! the! national! courts! the! applicant! alleged! that! he! had!been! arrested! in!
consequence! of! the! police! officers! acting! as!agents#provocateurs.! He! had! only!
committed! the! offence! “as#a#result#of# the# immoral#and#unlawful#conduct#of# the#
two#police#officers,# since#he#had#committed# the#offence# solely#and#exclusively#at#
their# behest.”#276#They! were! not! organizing! an! anti_drug! trafficking! operation!
following!a!judicial!order,!thereby!they!deprived!him!of!the!right!to!a!fair!trial.!
The!police!officers!were!not!even!investigating!Mr.!Teixeira!de!Castro,!he!was!
not!even!a!suspect!yet!he!was!still!convicted!and!sentenced!to!imprisonment.!!
!
The! domestic! court! sustained! that! “provided# that# the#sacrifice#of# the#accused’s#
individual#freedom#was#justified#by#the#values#that#were#being#upheld….”#277#it!did!
not! matter! whether! the! officers! were! undercover! agents! or! agents#
provocateurs.! ! The! way! the! court! structured! its! beliefs! is! beyond! what! is!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!274!Teixeira#de#Castro#vs#Portugal,!no:!44/1997/828/1034,!ECHR!1998_VI!275!.ibid#276!.ibid!§!14!277!Teixeira#de#Castro#vs#Portugal!§!20!
! 84!
reasonable!and!fortunately!the!ECtHR!disagreed!with!this!reasoning.!In!fact,! if!
this!was! the! case,! then! every!drug!user! can!be! a! source! leading! the!police! to!
another! user! without! necessarily! having! ever! trafficked! the! same! drugs! on!
which!he!is!hooked!in!order!to!preserve!the!values!of!society.!!
!
Following!this!reasoning!the!rights!of! the!minority!would!not!be!safeguarded,!
which!is!unacceptable;!“the#right#to#the#fair#administration#of#justice#holds#such#a#
prominent#place#that#it#cannot#be#sacrificed#for#the#sake#of#expedience.”278!Prior!
to!being!approached,!Teixeira!never!had!any!intention!of!supplying!drugs!and!
although!he!was!a!drug!user!himself,!he!had!no!previous!criminal!conviction.!It!
is!also!important!to!note!that!from!this!transaction!the!applicant!did!not!make!
any!profit.!
!
The!Portuguese!Supreme!Court!allowed!the!use!of!“infiltrators”! in! the!combat!
against!drug!trafficking.!A!clear!distinction!_!between!an#‘undercover#agent’#who!
restricts! himself! to! accumulating! material,! and! an# ‘agent# provocateur’# who!
actually!provokes!individuals!to!perform!a!criminal!offence!_!is!made!in!several!
European!countries.!!
!
The! applicant! argued! that! had! it! not! been! for! the! intrusion! of! the! agents#
provocateurs,# he! would! have! never! trafficked! drugs.! Although! in! the! fight!
against!drug!trafficking!most!of!the!member!states!allow!for!the!use!of!special!
investigative! techniques,! one! of! them! being! undercover! policing,! when! the!
undercover!agents!act! as!agents#provocateurs,! they!would!be!deemed! to!have!
violated! the! rights! of! a! particular! individual.! In! this! case,! the! applicant!
protested! against! the! fact! that! due! to! the! officers! urging! him! to! commit! the!
illicit!act,!his!rights!under!Article!6!§!1!of!the!Convention!had!been!breached.!!
!
Upon! raising! such! complaint,! the! Portuguese! government! said! that! it! was!
crucial!that!there!be!a!distinction!between!when!the!actions!of!the!undercover!
agent! create! a! criminal! intent! that! had! been! formerly! lacking! and!when! they!
uncover! the!disposition!of! the!applicant! to!commit! the!offence.! In! this!case,! it!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!278!Delcourt#vs#Belgium,!Series!A!no.!11,!p.15!§15!
! 85!
was! alleged! that! the! officers! had! done! the! latter! when! they! provided! the!
applicant!with!an!opportunity!to!supply!drugs.!!
!
The! role! of! the!ECtHR! in! all! this! is! “to#ascertain#whether# the#proceedings#as#a#
whole,# including#the#way# in#which#evidence#was#taken,#were# fair.”279#Other! than!
that!it!is!up!to!the!domestic!courts!as!to!what!should!be!admitted!as!evidence.!
For! the! evidence! to! be! admissible,! it!must! be! relevant! and! not! subject! to! an!
exclusionary! rule.! An! additional! sine# qua# non# condition! is! that! the! evidence!
should!be!collected!and! treated! in!a! fair!and!proper!manner!before! it! is!even!
made!admissible.!Notwithstanding!the!fact!that!one!specific!characteristic!may!
constitute! unfairness! of! the! proceedings,! the!ECtHR!will! have! to! evaluate! the!
trial!in!its!entirety!before!answering!the!question!as!to!whether!or!not!the!trial!
had!been!fair.!!
!
The!ECtHR!noticed!that!the!facts!of!this!case!were!distinguishable!from!that!of!
Lüdi#vs#Switzerland.280!In! the! latter! case,! the! operation!was! authorized!by! the!
investigating! judge!who! had! also! opened! a! preliminary! investigation! and! the!
role! of! the! police! officer! in! that! case! was! confirmed! as! being! one! of! an!
undercover! agent.! In! the! Teixeira! case! there! was! no! anti_drug_trafficking!
operation!supervised!by!a! judge!and! the!police!has!no! reason! to! suspect! that!
the!applicant!was!a!drug_trafficker.!Rather,!he!had!no!previous!convictions!and!
no!preliminary! investigation!had!been!opened!against!him.!The!officers!were!
not!even!aware!of!his!existence,! they!crossed!paths!with!him! through!a! third!
party.!!
!
The! Court! also! noted! that!when! the! applicant!was! arrested! he! had! the! exact!
amount!of!drugs!that!was!requested!by!the!Police;!thus!he!had!no!more!drugs!
in!his!possession,!not!even!at!home.!There!was!no!proof!demonstrating!that!the!
applicant! was! predisposed! to! commit! any! offence.! The! conviction! of! the!
applicant!was!based!on!the!statements!made!by!the!police!officers.!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!279!Teixeira#de#Castro#vs#Portugal!§34!280!no!:!12433/86,!ECHR!1992_VI!
! 86!
In! this! case,! it!was! vital! for! the! Court! to! establish! if! the! behavior! of! the! two!
police!officers!had!departed!from!that!of!merely!undercover!agents.!The!ECtHR!
came!to! the!corollary! that! the!officers!had!not! limited!themselves! to!studying!
and!investigating!Mr.!Teixeira!de!Castro’s! illicit!endeavors! in!a!simply!passive!
manner,!they!had!pressured!him!to!an!extent!that!they!had!actually!incited!the!
commission! of! the! offence! he! was! convicted! with.! Their! movements! had!
exceeded! those! of! undercover! agents;! they! prompted! the! offence! and! there!
existed!nothing! to!advocate! that!without! their! involvement! the!offence!would!
have!still!been!committed.!!
!
“That#intervention#and#its#use#in#the#impugned#criminal#proceedings#meant#that,#
right#from#the#outset,#the#applicant#had#been#definitively#deprived#of#a#fair#trial.#
Consequently,#there#has#been#a#violation#of#Article#6#§#1.”#
#
The! remedy! in! this! case! was! one! of! a! kind;! monetary! compensation! for!
pecuniary! and! non_pecuniary! damages! was! awarded.! The! Portugese!
government!was!ordered!to!repay!not!only!the!various!litigation!costs!but!also!
the!wages!he!had! lost!during!the!time!he!was! imprisoned.!This!case!has!been!
influential! over! the! other! countries! of! Western! Europe! and! will! probably!
continue!to!be!as!such!for!several!years.!281!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!281!Dru! Stevenson! ‘Entrapment! and! Terrorism’! –! Boston! College! Law!Review,! Vol.! 49:125! pg!155_56!
! 87!
Chapter!4!:!GENERAL!PRINCIPLES!ESTABLISHED!BY!THE!
EUROPEAN!COURT!OF!HUMAN!RIGHTS!WITH!REGARDS!TO!
THE!APPLICABILITY!OF!ARTICLE!6!TO!PRE1TRIAL!
PROCEEDINGS!AS!FOLLOWED!BY!LOCAL!AND!STRASBOURG!!
CASE1LAW!
!
“It#is#not#the#entrapment#of#a#criminal#upon#which#
the# law# frowns,# but# the# seduction# of# innocent#
people#into#a#criminal#career#by#its#officer#is#what#
is#condemned#and#will#not#be#tolerated.”282#!
!
4.1.!Article!6!Implications!
!As! recently! explained! by! the! Constitutional! Court! in!Charles#Steven#Muscat#vs#
AG,283!the!right!granted!by!the!Constitution!and!the!Convention!is!just!that!of!a!
fair!trial.!There!is!no!right!that!due!to!some!irregularity284!the!accused!should!
be!allowed!to!get!away!with!the!consequences!of!his!actions;!one!should!not!be!
acquitted!or!discharged.!
!
However!it!is!crucial!for!the!Court!to!establish!the!significance!of!Article!6!of!the!
Convention.!In!Sandro#Chetcuti#et#vs#AG285!it!was!held!that!:!!
#
“Id2drittijiet# fundamentali# kollha# huma# meqjusa# bhala# ugwali# fl2importanza#
taghhom#pero’#huwa#ragjonevoli#li#targumenta#li#d2dritt#tas2smiegh#xieraq#huwa#
aktar# importanti# fil2prattika#peress# li# jekk#sistema#legali#ma#tiggarantix#dan# id2
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!282!!‘Wharton’s#Criminal#Evidence’,!para!33!under!the!title!of!Entrapment!!!283!First!Hall!of!the!Civil!Court!(Constitutional!Jurisdiction),!10th!October!2011,!75/2010!!284!whatever!it!may!be!285!First!Hall!of!the!Civil!Court!(Constitutional!Jurisdiction),!28th!January!2005,!8/2003/1!!
! 88!
dritt# huwa# dibattibli# kemm# id2drittijiet# l2ohra# jistghu# b’xi# mod# jigu#
issalvagwardati”.#
#
4.2.!General!Principles!Established!By!The!European!Court!of!
Human!Rights!
!In!Bannikova# vs# Russia286!the! ECtHR! came! up! with! several! tests! to! ascertain,!
whether! or! not! the! applicant! has! had! a! fair! trial! under! the! domestic! courts!
when!undercover! agents!were!used.!The! test! is! first! to! establish! if! there!was!
entrapment,! followed! by! another! assessment! to! determine! whether! the!
applicant! was! able! to! make! an! entrapment! defence! before! the! domestic!
courts. 287 !In! its! assessment! the! Court! takes! into! account! a! number! of!
considerations!to!establish!whether!there!has!been!entrapment.!These!are!dealt!
with!below.!
!
4.2.1.!Did!The!Agent!Have!An!“Essentially'Passive”'Behavior?!
!The! undercover! agent! must! restrict! himself! to! observing! the! illegitimate!
activity! in! “an# essentially# passive# manner”! and! make! sure! that! he! does! not!
exercise! direct! influence! on! the! suspected! individual! such! as! to! incite! him! to!
commit!the!offence!with!which!he!will!be!later!charged.!!
!
In! deciding! whether! the! investigation! was! “essentially# passive”,! the! Court!
assesses!the!motivations!underlying!the!covert!operation!and!the!demeanor!of!
the! authorities! carrying! it! out.! In! particular,! it! will! determine!whether! there!
were! unbiased! suspicions! that! the! applicant! had! been! involved! in! criminal!
activity!or!was!predisposed!to!commit!a!criminal!offence.!!
!
A! preceding! criminal! record! is! not! by! itself! indicative! of! a! predisposition! to!
commit! a! criminal! offence.288!The! applicant’s! ability! to! acquire! drugs! in! a!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!286!!no.!18757/06,!ECHR!2011_II!287!.ibid!§§!37!and!51!288!Constantin#and#Stoian#vs#Romania,#nos.!23782/06!and!46629/06,!ECHR!2010_I!§!55!
! 89!
limited! period! of! time! and! his! acquaintance!with! the! current! price! of! drugs,!
merged!with!his!failure!to!renounce!from!the!deal!notwithstanding!a!number!of!
chances! to! do! so289!has! however! been! considered! as! being! suggestive! of! pre_
existing!criminal!activity!or!intent.!290!!
!
4.2.2.!Was!There!Any!Compulsion,!Pressure,!Coercion,!Instigation!Or!
Incitement?!
!Another!factor!which!is!looked!into!by!the!Court!is!whether!the!applicant!was!
pressured,!compelled,!coerced,!instigated!or!incited!into!committing!the!offence!
at! issue.! Following! extensive! case! law! on! the! issue! of! entrapment,! the! Court!
determined!that!certain!knowledge!and!behavior!lead!to!the!corollary!that!the!
applicant! was! compelled! into! committing! the! offence! in! question.! ! These!
include,!inter#alia:#
• Taking! the! initiative! in! contacting! the! applicant! in! the! absence! of! any!
objective! suspicion! that! the! applicant! had! been! involved! in! criminal!
activity!or!was!predisposed!to!commit!a!criminal!offence291!
• Having! no! knowledge! whether! the! applicant! was! involved! in! drug_
trafficking! prior! to! the! commencement! of! the! criminal! investigation!
against!the!applicant.292!!
• Reiterating!the!offer!despite!the!applicant’s!initial!refusal293!
• Raising!the!price!beyond!average294!
• Appealing! to! the! applicant’s! compassion! by! mentioning! withdrawal!
symptoms.295!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!289!Shannon#vs#the#United!Kingdom,!(dec)!no.!67537/01!290!Constantin#and#Stoian#vs#Romania!!291!Burak#Hun#vs#Turkey,#no.!17570/04,!ECHR!2010_I,!§!44!292!Pareniuc#vs#the#Republic#of#Moldova,#no!17953/08,!ECHR!2014_X!293!Ramanauskas#vs#Lithuana!§!67!294!Malininas#vs#Lithuania!§!37!295!Vanyan#vs#Russia!§!11!and!49;!Lagutin#and#Others#vs#Russia!
! 90!
4.2.3.!Did!The!Agents!‘Join’!The!Criminal!Activity!Or!Did!They!‘Create’!It?!
!A! further! question! which! is! vital! in! the! determination! of! entrapment! or!
otherwise!is!whether!the!under!cover!agents!can!be!reckoned!to!have!“joined”!
or!“infiltrated”!the!illicit!endeavor!rather!than!having!commenced!it!themselves.!
If! they! penetrate! the! criminal! activity,! they! will! be! within! the! realm! of!
legitimate!undercover!work.!!
!
4.2.4.!The!Manner!In!Which!The!Operation!Was!Carried!Out!
!In! evaluating! whether! the! applicant! was! exposed! to! entrapment,! it! is!
imperative!to!establish!how!the!police!operation!was! launched!and!conveyed.!
The! deficiency! of! well_defined! and! predictable! procedures! for! authorizing,!
employing! and! overseeing! the! investigative! measure! in! question! tips! the!
balance!in!favour!of!finding!that!the!actions!at!issue!constitute!entrapment.!For!
instance:!
!
• in! Teixeira# de# Castro# vs# Portugal! 296 !the! undercover! operation! was!
neither!controlled!by!a!judicial!authority!nor!had!it!taken!place!as!part!of!
legitimate!anti_drug!trafficking!operation.297! !
!
• In! Ramanauskas# vs# Lithuania! 298 !there! was! no! indication! of! what!
motivations!had!led!the!undercover!agent!to!approach!the!applicant!on!
his! own! initiative! without! bringing! the! matter! to! the! attention! of! his!
superiors.299! !
!
• In! Vanyan# vs# Russia!300!the! Court! noted! that! the! police! operation! had!
been! approved! by! a! decision! of! the! same! body!which! carried! out! the!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!296!!no:!44/1997/828/1034,!ECHR!1998_VI!297!.ibid!§!38!298!!(GC),!no.!77420/01!299!.ibid!§!64!300!!no.!53203/99,!ECHR!1006/111!
! 91!
operation! itself.! The! mentioned! decision! encompassed! no! motives! or!
reasons!for!the!planned!controlled!delivery.!301! !
!
4.2.5.!The!Rights!Of!The!Defence!
!As! a! general! rule,! all! evidence! must! be! produced! at! a! public! hearing! in! the!
presence! of! the! accused.! Article! 6! necessitates! that! the! defendant! be! given! a!
proper! and! adequate! prospect! of! questioning! and! challenging! a!witness!who!
gives! evidence! against! him.302 !Hence,! the! rights! of! the! defence! would! be!
breached! if!his! conviction! is!based!on! the!evidence!given!by!a!witness!whom!
the!applicant!had!no!opportunity!to!scrutinize!at!the!trial.!!
!
The! application! of!Mr.# Giuseppe# Calabró303!was! dismissed! by! the! Strasbourg!
Court!on!the!basis!of!being!manifestly!ill_founded.!The!facts!were!that!the!main!
witness! who! carried! out! the! undercover! operation! could! not! be! found!
notwithstanding! that! the! authorities! tried! their! hardest! to! trace! him.! The!
ECtHR!held!that!such!unavailability!should!not!however!block!the!prosecution.!
Unlike! in! the! case! of!Teixeira#de#Castro,! in! the! applicant’s! case,! the!witness’s!
statements!were!not!a!conclusive!feature!in!the!applicant’s!imprisonment.!The!
ECtHR! noted! that! during! the! domestic! proceedings,! the! applicant! had! the!
chance!to!query!the!evidence!brought!forward!by!the!other!police!officers!who!
had! also! formed! part! of! the! investigations! against! him.! Therefore! this!
application!was!deemed!inadmissible.!
!
4.3.!Judicial!Review!Of!The!Plea!Of!Entrapment!!
!In! various! judgments,! the! ECtHR! held! that! the! right! to! a! fair! trial! is! only!
complied!with!if!the!applicant!was!effectively!and!efficiently!allowed!to!advance!
his! complaint! of! incitement! during! his! trial.! The! Court! has! denoted! that!
provided! that! the! defendant’s! contentions! are! not! entirely! implausible,! the!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!301!.ibid!§!46!_!47!302!Lüdi%vs#Switzerland!303!Calabro#vs#Italy!(dec)no:!59895/00,!21st!March!2002!
! 92!
burden!of!proving!that!there!was!no!provocation!by!the!undercover!authorities!
falls! on! the! prosecution.! The! domestic! courts! cannot! merely! say! that! the!
applicant!did!not!substantiate!his!allegation.!
!
The! Court’s! role! is! to! determine! whether! the! domestic! proceedings! in! their!
entirety,! including!the!manner! in!which!the!evidence!was!obtained,!were! fair.!
“As# a# general# rule# the# admissibility# and# assessment# of# evidence# is# a#matter# for#
regulation# by# national# law# and# appreciation# by# the# domestic# courts.”304#This!
notwithstanding! the! Court! declared! that! it! will! not! allow! the! admission! of!
certain!evidence,!such!as!that!obtained!by!way!of!entrapment,! to! form!part!of!
the!proceedings!if!it!can!render!the!trial!unfair.!
!
Whenever!a!plea!of!entrapment!is!raised,!the!judicial!authorities!are!obliged!to!
scrutinize! the! details! of! the! case! at! issue! and! take! the! required! steps! to!
establish! the! existence! or! otherwise! of! the! incitement! and! thus! discover! the!
truth.!The!domestic!courts!are!not!exempted!from!the!burden!of!examining!the!
contentions!of!entrapment!despite!the!fact!that!the!applicant!pleaded!guilty!to!
the!criminal!charges!brought!against!him.305!!
!
The!Strasbourg!Court!will!carry!out!a!meticulous!analysis!of!the!material!in!the!
file,! since! for! the! trial! to! be! fair! within! the! meaning! of! Article! 6! §! 1! of! the!
Convention,! all! evidence! attained! in! consequence! of! entrapment! must! be!
eliminated.! This! is! particularly! right! when! the! undercover! operation! takes!
place!without!sufficient!safeguards!or!adequate!legal!framework.!!
!
The!ECtHR!will!verify!if!the!complaint!constitutes!a!ground!for!the!exclusion!of!
evidence! or! a! substantive! defence! under! domestic! law.!While! the! Court! does!
not! interfere!with!what! procedure! should! be! adopted! by! the! national! courts!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!304!Van#Mechelen#and#Others#vs#the#Netherlands,!23rd!April!1997,!Reports!1997_III,!691,!(1998)!25!EHRR!647§50!305!this! is! analysed! further! in! Chapter! 5!with! regards! to! the! judgments! of! the! EctHR!decided!against!Russia!
! 93!
when!faced!with!the!plea!of!entrapment,!it!requires!the!procedure!in!question!
to!be!adversarial,!thorough,!comprehensive!and!conclusive!on!the!issue.!306!
!
4.4.!Is!The!General!Right!Safeguarded!Under!Article!6!Applicable!To!
Pre1Trial!Proceedings?!
!Certainly! the! primary! purpose! of! Article! 6! as! far! as! criminal! matters! are!
concerned!is!to!ensure!a!fair!trial!by!a!“tribunal”!competent!to!determine!“any#
criminal#charge”,!307!but!it!does!not!follow!that!the!Article!6!has!no!application!
to! pre_trial! proceedings.! Other! requirements! of! Article! 6,! particularly! the!
minimum! guarantees! especially! of! paragraph! 3,! may! likewise! be! relevant!
before!a!case!is!sent!for!trial!if!and!in!so!far!as!the!fairness!of!the!trial!is!likely!to!
be!seriously!prejudiced!by!an!initial!failure!to!comply!with!them.!308!
!
4.4.1.!Alan!Muscat!vs!Avukat!Ġenerali309!
!Alan! Muscat310!initiated! a! human! rights! action! whilst! undergoing! criminal!
proceedings!before!the!Criminal!Court!in!Repubblika#ta’#Malta#vs#Henry#Grogan#
et311!whereby!together!with!others!he!is!being!accused!of!drug!trafficking.!
!
It!all!started!when!Anthony!Calleja312!informed!the!Police!that!he!was!willing!“li#
jġibilhom# każ# tajjeb# tad2droga”.313!Police! accepted! the! offer! and! brought! the!
necessary!authorisations!from!the!duty!magistrate!to!proceed!with!a!controlled!
delivery314!following!which!the!applicant!together!with!another!3!persons!were!
arrested.!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!306!Bannikova#vs#Russia!§!57!307!Pisano#v.!Italy,!no.!36732/97,!27!July!2000,!(2002)!34!EHRR!27,!§!27.!308!.ibid!309!First!Hall!of!the!Civil!Court!(Constitutional!Jurisdiction),!18th!October!2013,!45/2013!!310!One!of!four!accused!who!are!awaiting!a!trial!by!jury!311!7/2012!312!a!drug!trafficker!himself,!aiming!to!get!a!reduction!from!his!sentence!in!a!similar!situation!313!Alan!Muscat! vs! Avukat! Ġenerali,! First! Hall! of! the! Civil! Court! (Constitutional! Jurisdiction),!18th!October!2013,!45/2013!!314!in!terms!of!Article!30B!of!Cap!101!
! 94!
The! applicant! requested! the! First! Hall! of! the! Civil! Court! in! its! constitutional!
jurisdiction!to!declare!that!this!was!a!case!of!entrapment!because!the!use!of!the!
controlled! delivery! was! abusive! and! thereby! declare! that! all! the! evidence!
gathered! through! such! technique! should! have! no! probatory! value.! The!
applicant!argued!that!criminal!proceedings!commenced!only!as!a!result!of!such!
entrapment.!!
!
He! alleged! that! through! their! informant,! the! Executive! Police! instigated! the!
drug!trafficking!and!acted!as!agents!provocateurs.!Therefore!the!evidence!which!
is!going!to!be!brought!against!him315!in!the!criminal!proceedings!will!lead!to!a!
breach!of!the!right!to!a!fair!hearing!due!to!the!way!such!evidence!was!gathered.!
His!complaint!was!with!regards!to!pre_trial!proceedings!whereby!he!contended!
that!his!rights!as!safeguarded!under!Article!39!of!the!Constitution!of!Malta!and!
Article!6!of!the!ECHR!had!been!breached.!
!
The!AG! raised! preliminary! pleas! on! procedural! issues! claiming! that! once! the!
criminal!proceedings!have!not!yet!been!heard!and!decided,!it!is!not!yet!known!
under!what!circumstances!the!applicant!will!be!disadvantaged!during!his!trial.!
The!AG!insisted!that!one!cannot!know!a#priori#whether!or!not!he!will!receive!a!
fair!trial,316!and!consequently!the!complaint!cannot!be!looked!into!in#vacuo.317#
#
Furthermore,!negotiations!were!entered! into!between!Calleja!and!Grogan,!but!
when!the!latter!consigned!the!drugs!to!Calleja!and!was!subsequently!arrested,!
he!was!accompanied!by! the!applicant!and!other! individuals.!According! to! the!
AG! the! applicant! cannot! therefore!make! reference! to! entrapment;! during! the!
controlled!delivery!the!Police!had!no!idea!that!Grogan!had!other!accomplices318!
“ahseb#u#ara#kemm#il2Pulizija#riedu#jippruvaw#jonsbuh319”.#
#
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!315!and!others!–!Repubblika!ta’!Malta!vs!Henry!Grogan,!7/2012!316!This!was!also!established!by!the!Constitutional!Court! in!Morgan#Ehi#Egbomon#vs#AG#on!the!16th!of!March!2011,!21/2009/1!317!“ladarba# f’dan# il2każ# il2proċess# kriminali# għadu# ma# giex# mismugħ# u# mitmum,# għadu# mhux#magħruf#kif#u#taħt#liema#ċirkostanzi#r2rikorrent#ser#jiġi#żvantaġġjat.#Huwa#ċertament#barra#minn#loku#illi#l2ilment#de#quo#jiġi#diskuss#f’dan#l2istadju#in#vacuo.”!!318!one!of!them!being!the!applicant!himself!319!referring!to!the!applicant!
! 95!
Therefore,!there!were!two!problems:!
1. the! right! to! a! fair! trial! can! only! be! looked! into! after! the! entire!
proceedings!come!to!an!end;!and!
2. the! accused! should! have! raised! a! plea! regarding! the! admissibility! of!
evidence!and!not!go!for!a!human!rights!action.!He!can!still!do!so!before!
the!trial!starts!before!the!Criminal!Court.!!
#
The!AG!asserted!that!by!initiating!this!constitutional!case,!the!applicant!ignored!
the! juridical! reality! that! during! the! penal! process! it! is! the! magistrate! of! the!
Criminal!Court!who!is!the!moderator!of!the!proceedings!and!who!has!the!power!
by! law! “biex# ikun# jista’# jassigura#proċess#xieraq#u#ġust”.320!The!AG! almost! took!
the!initiation!of!this!action!as!a!personal!attack!against!the!integrity!of!the!office!
of! the!Magistrate;! “it2tressiq#ta’#din# il2kawża#kostituzzjonali#hija#att# ta’# sfiduċja#
per# se# lejn# il2Qorti# Kriminali…”#However,! the! applicant! held! that! the! Court! of!
Magistrates! as! well! as! the! Criminal! Court! will! only! deal! with! whether! a!
particular!piece!of!evidence!is!admissible!or!otherwise,!but!it!is!not!competent!
to!declare!“li#l2provi#ngabru#b’mod#leziv”.#
!
4.4.1.1.!Conclusions!Of!The!Court!!
!The!First!Hall!upheld!the!submissions!of!the!AG!and!concluded!that!it! is!up!to!
the!Criminal! Court! to! decide!whether! the! controlled!delivery!was! actually! an!
entrapment.! It! did!not! go! into! the!matter! at! issue,! it! simply! concluded! that! it!
had!no!jurisdiction!to!take!cognisance!of!the!case.!This!does!not!however!mean!
that!there!was!no!breach;!the!controlled!delivery!is!still!being!questioned.!!
!
Notwithstanding! that! there!might!not!have!been!an!actual!entrapment! in! this!
case,!the!applicant!made!very!valid!submissions!with!regards!to!the!issue!that!
Article! 6! can! be! challenged! prior! to! the! ending! of! the! proceedings.!
Unfortunately!such!issues!have!been!ignored!not!only!by!the!AG!but!also!by!the!
Court.!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!320 !Emmanuel# sive# Leli# Camilleri# vs# il2Kummissarju# tal2Pulizija,! Constitutional! Court,! 20th!December!2000!
! 96!
Therefore,! in! this! case,! the! only! remedy! for! the! applicant! is! to!wait! until! the!
initiation!of!the!trial!by!jury!and!raise!a!preliminary!plea!on!the!admissibility!of!
evidence! before! the! Criminal! Court.!He! can! only!make! a! human! rights! action!
when!the!trial!by!jury!ends;!but!only!if!he!would!still!be!feeling!that!he!was!not!
given!a!fair!trial.!!
!
4.4.1.2.!Commentary!On!The!Judgment!Of!Alan!Muscat!vs!AG!
!The!accused!should!be!in!a!position!to!ask!for!the!pre_trial!investigation!to!be!
examined! in! order! to! ascertain!whether!his! rights!were! in! fact! violated.!That!
way! the! court!will! determine!whether! through! the! gathering! of! evidence! the!
police!had!done!something!preventing!the!accused!from!receiving!a!fair!trial!at!
a! later! stage.! If! illegitimately!procured! evidence! is! allowed,! the! accused!must!
not!wait!until!the!end!of!the!proceedings!in!order!to!challenge!it;321!one!should!
not!risk!his!rights!being!violated!even!further.!Provided!the!allegations!were!to!
be!true,!such!an!action!would!prevent!serious!repercussions.!
!
If!certain!evidence!is!excluded!by!the!court!because!it!was!illegally!obtained,!the!
prosecution!may! still! be! in! a! position! to! secure! a! conviction! and! the! accused!
would!still!have!a! fair!hearing.!Otherwise! if!accompanied!with!other!evidence!
that!was!properly!gathered,!it!would!lead!the!prosecution!to!build!a!half_baked!
case!against!the!accused.!
!
In!his!note!of! submissions! the!AG!maintained! that! the!Constitutional!Court322!
made! it! clear! that! in! order! to! determine!whether! there! has! been! a! breach! of!
Article!6!of!the!Convention!and!of!Article!39!of!the!Constitution!it!has!to!look!at!
the!proceedings!in!their!totality.!Hence,!it!cannot!merely!focus!on!just!one!part!
of!the!judicial!process.!This!reasoning!has!been!upheld!several!times.323!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!321!knowing!that!the!end!is!anything!but!near!!!322!!in!Adrian#Busietta#vs#AG,!Constitutional!Court,!13th!March!2006,!29/2003/1!323!!David#sive#David#Norbert#Schembri#vs#Avukat#Ġenerali,#Constitutional!Court,#25th!March!2011,!48/2008/1;!Repubblika#ta’#Malta#vs#Carmel#Camilleri,#Constitutional!Court,!22nd!February,!2013,!31/2011/1;!Pulizija#vs#Dr.#Melvyn#Mifsud,#Constitutional!Court,!26th!April!2013,!17/2011/1!!
! 97!
It!seems!that!with!regards!to!the!right!to!a! fair! trial,!one!has!to!wait!until! the!
end! of! the! entire! proceedings! in! order! to! make! a! complaint! or! challenge.!
Therefore!a!breach!would!be!prolonged!until!the!end,!meaning!that!a!person’s!
fundamental! rights! can! be! potentially! violated! even! further.! In! certain! cases,!
breaches!are!outright!obvious!and!if!committed!at!pre_trial!stage324!it!will!not!
remedy!itself!by!the!end!of!the!proceedings;!I!firmly!believe!that!it!can!only!get!
worse.! Further! admissible! evidence! would! be! built! on! improperly! obtained!
evidence,!which!could!make!a!stronger!case!for!the!prosecution!at!the!expense!
of! the! accused’s! freedom.! Properly! obtained! evidence! on! its! own! would! not!
have!had!the!same!strength!as!it!did!when!it!was!molded!into!the!illegitimately!
obtained!evidence.!
!
The! determination! by! the! court! of! a! breach! or! otherwise! would! allow! the!
judicial!process!to!take!a!different!route.!The!judicial!process!would!be!built!on!
a!clean!slate!and!not!on!an!allegation!that!the! foundation!of! the!entire!case! is!
built! around! an! alleged! violation! of! a! fundamental! human! right.! The! AG,!
representing! the! state,! should! be! at! the! forefront! to! promote! faultless! and!
flawless!proceedings!and!at!least!not!object!against!an!allegation!to!be!cleared.!!
!
It!does!seem!to!me!that!the!AG!is!almost!scared!of!a! finding!of!such!violation.!
Why!would!he!keep!insisting!not!to!have!the!action!instituted!at!this!stage?!In!
most!of! these!drug!trafficking!cases,! the! finding!of!guilt! is!almost!certain,! it! is!
mostly!a!matter!of!trying!to!reduce!the!charges!to!get!a!lesser!sentence.!The!AG!
is! aware! of! this! and! it! looks! like! he!wants! to! have! the! finding! of! guilt! before!
actually! being! allowed! to! challenge! the! proceedings! for! allegedly! breaching!
human!rights.!After!the!finding!of!guilt,!a!pronouncement!of!a!violation!would!
then! be! a!mere! declaration;! which! for! a! person!who! is! imprisoned! does! not!
mean! much.! The! accused! would! want! the! court! to! take! such! violation325!in!
consideration!when!determining!the!sentence.!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!324!as!it!was!alleged!in!this!case!325!provided!there!was!one!in!the!first!place!
! 98!
Then!again,!if!the!applicant!is!not!found!guilty!most!probably!he!would!not!even!
bother!to!challenge!any!violation,!even!if!this!had!taken!place.!There!should!not!
be!such!an!attitude;!one!should!not!challenge!a!violation!only!if!he!can!acquire!
something! tangible.! One! should! find! satisfaction! in! the! fact! that!
notwithstanding!the!lack!of!guilt,!there!still!existed!a!breach.!
!
In!this!case!of!Alan!Muscat!the!AG!mentioned!only!the!school!of!thought!which!
states!that!Article!6!becomes!applicable!as!soon!as!the!criminal!action! is! filed!
before! the! Court.! On! the! other! hand,! the! applicant! mentioned! the! opposite!
school!of!thought!which!states!that!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!comes!into!effect!as!
soon!as! the!police! take! the! first!step!which!might!eventually! lead! that!person!
into!having!a!criminal!action!instituted!against!him.!This!does!not!make!either!
line! of! thought! wrong,! it! means! that! it! was! then! up! to! the! court! to! make! a!
decision.!This!judgment!could!have!provided!some!sort!of!guidelines!whereby!it!
would! have! served! as! a! lighthouse! to! others! finding! themselves! in! the! same!
situation.!However!it!seems!that!the!AG!was!not!even!open!to!at!least!consider!
the!other!school!of!thought.!He!was!too!rigid!and!unfortunately!the!decision!of!
the!Court!did!not!really!help!either.!!
!
The! State! represented! by! the! AG! should! have! the!making! of! justice! in!mind.!
Justice! should! be! allowed! and! given! time! and! space! to! actually! take! place.! If!
there! is! the! possibility! of! a! challenge,! why! should! the! AG! oppose! to! it?!
Unfortunately!this!judgment!was!no!appealed.!!
!
4.4.2.!Henry!Grogan!u!Luke!Muscat!vs!Avukat!Ġenerali326!
!During! the! proceedings! of! the! case! of! Alan! Muscat,! Henry! Grogan! and! Luke!
Muscat327!initiated! another! human! rights! action! on! the! same! merits.! They!
maintained!that! this!controlled!delivery!had!nothing!that!was!“consistent#with#
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!326!First!Hall!of!the!Civil!Court!(Constitutional!Jurisdiction),!80/2012!(pending(!327!both!accused!in!Repubblika!ta’!Malta!vs!Henry!Grogan!et,!7/2012!
! 99!
the#ordinary#temptations#and#stratagems#that#are#likely#to#be#encountered#in#the#
course#of#criminal#activity.”328#
#
Whilst! making! explicit! reference329!to! the! non_appealed! judgment! of! Alan#
Muscat# vs# AG330!and! adopting! the! same! rigid! approach,! the! AG! once! again!
submitted! that! Article! 6! does! not! apply! to! the! stage! of! police! investigations!
because! at! that! time! there! was! no! criminal! proceedings! against! them.!
Furthermore,! Article! 6! cannot! yet! be! challenged! because! such! criminal!
proceeding! have! not! yet! come! to! an! end.! Hence! the! AG! asked! for! the! same!
conclusion!to!be!drawn!from!the!Alan!Muscat!case!into!this!one.!Obviously!the!
applicants!did!not!agree.!!
!
By! the! time!of! the!writing!of! this! thesis,! this! case! is! still! pending.!However! it!
seems!that!it!is!doomed!like!the!one!which!was!initiated!before!it.!!
!
4.5.!When!does!Article!6!start!to!apply?!
!
4.5.1.!Upon!investigation?!
!In! Foti# and# Others# vs# Italy!331!the! ECtHR! pronounced! that! the! rights! under!
Article!6!find!their!application!upon!the!initiation!of!measures!that!may!affect!
an!individual!if!and!when!brought!before!the!Court.!This!means!that!it!applies!
during!the!stages!preceding!criminal!proceedings!and!it!was!later!confirmed!in!
Aleksander#Zaichenko#vs#Russia.332!!
!
In!Imbrioscia#vs#Switzerland333!the!ECtHR!argued!that!!“…requirements#of#Article#
6#may#also#be#relevant#before#a#case#is#sent#for#trial#if#and#in#so#far#as#the#fairness#
of#the#trial#is#likely#to#be#seriously#prejudiced#by#an#initial#failure#to#comply#with#
them”.#!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!328!Ridgeway#vs#The#Queen!(1995)!184!CLR!19,!92.!329!in!the!sense!that!the!same!wording!has!been!used.!!330!First!Hall!of!the!Civil!Court!(Constitutional!Jurisdiction),!18th!October!2013,!45/2013!331!nos.!7604/76,!7719/76,!7781/77!and!7913/77!!332!no.!39660/02!!333!no.!13972/88!
! 100!
!
In! Repubblika# ta’# Malta# vs# Gregory# Robert# Eyre# et334 !the! Court! said! that!
“…minkejja#li#l2proċess#kriminali#ma#kienx#eżawrit,#il2Qorti#xorta#waħda#sabet#il2
ksur# tal2artiklu# 6.”# Therefore,! it! is! not! a! pre_requisite! for! the! criminal!
proceedings! to! end! before! the! Court! can! examine! whether! the! rights! under!
Article! 6! have! been! violated! or! otherwise.! This! principle!was! also! previously!
upheld! in! Vella# vs# Bannister. 335 !Hence! the! Court! cannot! and! shouldn’t!
systematically!dismiss!a!complaint!of!violation.!
!
Even! in! Teixeira# de# Castro# vs# Portugal,336!new! standards! were! then! imposed,!
which! served! to! extend! the! right! to! fairness! to! include! ‘pre_trial! process’.!337!
Following! such! judgment,! the! House! of! Lords! in! Loosely338!accepted! that! the!
pre_requisite! for! an! accused! to! receive! a! fair! trial! goes! beyond! the! trial!
proceedings!and!in!order!to!determine!a!breach,!the!entire!prosecution!process!
had!to!be!examined.!!
!
Therefore!according!to!these!judgment,!Article!6!ECHR!does!have!application!to!
pre_trial!proceedings.!!
!
4.5.2.!At!The!End!Of!The!Criminal!Action?!
!
4.5.2.1.!From!‘Charge’!To!‘Determination’!
!According! to! another! school! of! thought,! the! shield! of! procedural! protection!
afforded!by!Article!6! comes! into!play!as! soon!as!a! criminal! charge! is!brought!
against! an! individual! and! it! remains! in! place! until! the! charge! is! determined,!
hence!until!the!sentence!has!been!fixed!or!an!appeal!decided.!339!!In!Escoubet#vs#
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!334!Constitutional!Court,!1st!April!2005,!14/2004/1!!335!Constitutional!Court,!7th!March!1994!336!no:!44/1997/828/1034,!ECHR!1998_VI!337 !Criminal# Law# Defendant,# Available! at:! http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal2law/essays/criminal2law2defendant.php!(Accessed:!22nd!November!2014).!338!(2001)!1!WLR!2060!339!Mahoney,! Paul! (2004)! 'Right! to! a! fair! trial! in! criminal! matters! under! Article! 6! E.C.H.R',!Judicial#Studies#Institute#Journal,#4(2),!pp.!107_129.!
! 101!
Belgium340!the!ECtHR!held!that!the!requirements!of!Article!6!do!not!protect!“the#
pre2‘charge’# phase# of# a# prosecution,# and# in# particular# the# process# of# criminal#
investigation#prior#to#charging.”!The!due!process!guaranteed!by!Article!6!is!due!
only!if!the!individual!is!already!subject!to!a!criminal!charge.!341!!
!
In!Adrian#Busietta#vs#Avukat#Ġenerali342!the!Constitutional!Court!made! it! clear!
that!one!has!to! look!at! the! judicial!process! in! its!entirety!before!being!able! to!
determine!whether!a!violation!of! the!right! to!a! fair! trial!has!taken!place.!That!
same! right! does! not! apply! to! each! and! every! step! in! isolation.! This! logic! has!
been!upheld!numerous!times.!343!!
!
In!Repubblika#ta’#Malta#vs#Matthew#John#Migneco344!!the!Court!said!that!Article!
39! of! the! Constitution! does! not! apply! to! events! that! occured! during! the!
investigative! stage,! prior! to! court! proceedings! being! initiated! no! Article! 6!
safeguards!are!guaranteed.!
!
Similarly,!the!Constitutional!Court!in!Pulizija#vs#Dr.#Melvyn#Mifsud345!contended!
that!a!declaration!of!a!violation!of!the!rights!safeguarded!under!Article!6!of!the!
Convention!can!only!be!made!“fi#tmiem#il2proċedimenti#u#mhux#qabel”.!The!same!
court!in!Ronald#Agius#vs#Avukat#Ġenerali346!had!previously!said!that!“Id2dritt#ta’#
smigħ#xieraq#għandu#jitqies# fid2dawl#tal2proċeduri# fit2totalita’# tagħhom,#u#mhux#
fid2dawl#ta’#episodji#proċedurali#meqjusa#wieħed#wieħed.”!It!further!said!that:!
!
“meta# l2proċeduri#għadhom#ma#ntemmewx,#u#għadu#mhux#magħruf#x’siwi#sejjer#
ikollhom#il2provi#l2ġodda,#u#x’piż#u#x’relevanza#sejrin#jingħatawlhom#fid2deċiżjoni#
finali…# jista’# jkun# li# r2rikorrent# jingħata# rimedju# biżżejjed# waqt# il2proċeduri#
ordinarji.”##
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!340![1999]!26780/95!341!.ibid!342!Constitutional!Court,!13th!March!2006,!29/2003/1!343!David#sive#David#Norbert#Schembri#vs#Avukat#Ġenerali,#Constitutional!Court,#25th!March!2011,!48/2008/1;!Repubblika#ta’#Malta#vs#Carmel#Camilleri,#Constitutional!Court,!22nd!February,!2013,!31/2011/1;!Pulizija#vs#Dr.#Melvyn#Mifsud,#Constitutional!Court,!26th!April!2013,!17/2011/1!344!Repubblika!ta’!Malta!vs!Matthew!John!Migneco!,!First!Hall!of!the!Civil!Court!(Constitutional!Jurisdiction),!15th!November!2011,!42/2011!!345!Pulizija#vs#Dr.#Melvyn#Mifsud,!Constitutional!Court,!26th!April!2013,!!17/2011/1/!!346!Ronald#Agius#vs#Avukat#Ġenerali#Constitutional!Court,!30th!November!2001,!18/2001/1!!
! 102!
According!to!the!reasoning!of!the!Court!this!is!because!a!declared!shortcoming!
may! be! alleviated! by! ensuing! measures347 .! This! notwithstanding! that! the!
cumulative! effect! of! a! series! of! procedural! shortcomings,! which! individually!
may! be! of! minor! significance,! may! compromise! the! person’s! right! to! a! fair!
trial.348!
!
4.5.3.!Conclusion!
!I!personally!agree!with!the!first!school!of!thought!as!I!believe!that!an!evaluation!
of! the! right! to! a! fair! trial! should! take! place! at! any! stage! of! the! criminal!
proceedings.!Otherwise,! a!victim!of! injustice!would!have! to! remain!silent!and!
allow!for!the!violations!to!continue!to!take!place!throughout!the!entirety!of!the!
proceedings!and!only!upon!their!termination!would!he!be!in!a!position!to!make!
the! human! rights! action.! I! also! suppose! that! the! rights! safeguarded! under!
Article! 6! should! be! made! applicable! at! the! pre_trial! stage,! otherwise! those!
accused! may! become! victims! of! gross! injustice! themselves.! That! way! the!
applicant!would!have!his!mind!at!rest!following!a!declaration!by!the!competent!
court!!
!
4.6.!Human!Rights!–!Procedural!Implications!!
!Article!46(1)!of!the!Constitution!states!that!whoever!alleges!that!a!fundamental!
right!“…is#likely#to#be#contravened…may#apply#for#redress.”#Therefore!even!if!the!
right!had!not!yet!been!contravened,!there!is!still!the!possibility!to!challenge!that!
potential!breach.!However,!the!proviso!to!Article!46349!enables!the!First!Hall!of!
the!Civil!Court!to!decline!to!exercise!its!power!if!it!is!satisfied!that!the!applicant!
has!or!had!available!ordinary!means!of!redress!and!he!failed!to!use!them.!!
!
If! an! accused! feels! ! that! a! human! rights! point! arose! before! the! Court! of!
Magistrates,! he! has! the! opportunity! to! make! use! of! the! reference! procedure!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!347!for!example!through!an!appeal!348!Mahoney,! Paul! (2004)! 'Right! to! a! fair! trial! in! criminal! matters! under! Article! 6! E.C.H.R',!Judicial#Studies#Institute#Journal,#4(2),!pp.!107_129.!349!Of!the!Constitution!
! 103!
under!Article!46(3)!of! the!Constitution!and!unless!declared! to!be! frivolous!or!
vexatious!by!that!same!Court350,!it!would!refer!the!issue!to!the!First!Hall!of!the!
Civil!Court! in! its!constitutional! jurisdiction!to!deal!with! it!and!give!a!decision.!
During! this! time! proceedings! before! the! original! court351!are! halted;! upon!
decision,!the!Court!of!Magistrates!regulates!itself!accordingly.!!
!
If!one!requests!a!constitutional! reference!before! the!Court!of!Magistrates!and!
the!latter!decides!that!such!request!is!merely!frivolous!or!vexatious,!he!would!
still! have! the! opportunity! to! go! before! the! First! Hall! of! the! Civil! Court! in! its!
constitutional! jurisdiction! to! raise! the! same! issue! in! a! separate! independent!
human!rights!action.352!
!
However,!notwithstanding!the!possibility!to!seek!a!remedy!under!Article!46!of!
the!Constitution,!this!does!not!seem!to!apply!to!Article!6!violations.!!
!
4.7.!Analogical!Reference!To!The!Right!Of!Legal!Assistance?!
!By!analogy,!reference!MUST!be!made!to!the!case_law!relating!to!the!lack!of!legal!
assistance!at! interrogation!stage.!Such!case_law!attacked! the!criminal!process!
ab#initio.!In!Pulizija#(Spettur#Victor#Aquilina)#vs#Alvin#Privitera353!it!was!held!that!
although!it!is!true!that!the!judicial!process!must!be!examined!in!its!totality,!this!
does!not!mean!that!one!has!to!await!“l2eżitu#finali#bilfors!”#If!there!are!sufficient!
reasons!to!indicate!that!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!is!being!or!there!is!the!possibility!
that!it!is!going!to!be!prejudiced,!the!Court!is!obliged!to!declare!that!such!right!is!
being!or!is!going!to!be!breached.354!!!
!
Therefore,! following! the! same! reasoning! of! that! judgment,! which! also! deals!
with!violations!of!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!at!investigation!stage,!the!court!should!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!350!The!Court!of!Magistrates,!from!which!no!appeal!lies!on!this!matter!351!i.e.!the!Court!of!Magistrates!352!It!would!have!been!agiasnt!the!Commissioner!of!Police;!This!is!what!is!happening!at!the!time!during!which! this! thesis! is!being!written! in!Charles#Paul#Muscat#vs#Kummissarju#tal2Pulizija! in!relation! to! inhuman! and! degrading! treatment,! following# a# criminal# action# that#was# instituted#against#him#353!Constitutional!Court!,11th!April!2011,!20/2009/1!!354!just!as!in!Article!46!of!the!Constitution!
! 104!
actually! take! cognizance! of! this! issue.! Why! should! the! criminal! process!
continue! if! it! results! that! it!was! in! reality! initiated! from!a!violation?!A!simple!
declaration!that!in!fact!there!was!a!breach!–!but!only!after!the!entire!criminal!
proceedings! have! come! to! an! end! is! futile! and! it! would! definitely! not! be! an!
effective!remedy!as!necessitated!by!the!Convention.355!
!
In! Salduz# vs# Turkey356,! the! ECtHR! maintained! that! rights! established! under!
Article! 6! of! the! Convention! apply! even! before! the! initiation! of! any! criminal!
proceedings.! In! order! to! guarantee! that! the! rights! of! a! suspect! are! respected!
throughout!the!criminal!proceedings,!his!rights!should!be!safeguarded!from!the!
very!early!stages!of! the!entire!process,357!hence! in!pre_trial!proceedings.! !The!
ECtHR! concluded! that! the! position! of! the! defence! will! be! “irretrievably'
prejudiced”!358!if! the! violation! occurs! before! the! initiation! of! any! criminal!
proceedings.!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!355!Article!13!ECHR!356!(GC),!no.!36391/02,!ECHR!2008_XI!357!Jaan!Ginter!&Anneli!Soo,!‘The#Right#of#the#Suspect#to#Counsel#in#Pre2trial#Criminal#Proceedings,#Its# Content,# and# the# Extent# of# Application’,! Juridica! International! Law! Review,! University! of!Tartu,!pg!170_178!358!Salduz#vs#Turkey!
! 105!
Chapter!!5!!:!!AN!ANALYSIS!OF!THE!GENERAL!PRINCIPLES!
ESTABLISHED!IN!THE!EUROPEAN!COURT!OF!HUMAN!
RIGHTS!CASE1LAW!WHEN!DETERMINING!VIOLATION!OR!
OTHERWISE!OF!ARTICLE!6!OF!THE!CONVENTION!ONCE!AN!
ENTRAPMENT!PLEA!IS!RAISED!!
!
"The#current#international#system#of#drug#control#has#focused#on#creating#a#drug#free#world,#almost#exclusively# through# use# of# law# enforcement#policies# and# criminal# sanctions.#While# drugs#may#have# a# pernicious# effect# on# individual# lives# and#society,# this# excessively# punitive# regime# has# not#achieved# its# stated# goals,# and# has# resulted# in#countless#HR#violations."#359!
!
5.1.!Procedure!Followed!By!The!European!Court!of!Human!Rights!
Upon!Raising!An!Allegation!Of!Breach!Of!Article!6!Due!To!
Entrapment!
The! initial! approach360!taken! by! the! ECtHR! in! examining! an! entrapment! plea!
was!characterised!by!a!mixed!test!incorporating:!
a. subjective! elements! –! asking! whether! the! applicant! had! been!
predisposed! to! commit! an! offence! before! the! intervention! of! the!
undercover!agents;!together!with!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!359!Amand! Grover! UN! Special! Rapporteur! on! the! right! of! everyone! to! the! enjoyment! of! the!highest!attainable!standard!of!physical!and!mental!health,!2010.!
360!which!had!a!hint!of!both!approaches!followed!by!the!majority!and!minority!in!the!US!system.!!
! 106!
b. objective! elements! _! such! as! the! lack! of! judicial! supervision! of! the!
investigation!and!the!failure!by!the!police!to!investigate!in!an!‘essentially#
passive#manner.’#361!
In!Bannikova#v.#Russia362#the!ECtHR!recommended!a!change!in!the!use!of!a!two_
stage!analysis:!
a. a! substantive! analysis! following! an! objective! approach! whereby! the!
ECtHR! will! examine! the! characteristics! of! the! domestic! legal! basis!
regulating!undercover!operations.363!It!will!take!into!account,!inter#alia!
i. whether! the! document! authorising! this! investigative!method! as!
well!as!the!controlled!delivery!contains!sufficient!reasons!why!a!
controlled! operation! is! resorted! to;364!whether! the! controlled!
operation! by! the! undercover! agents! was! appropriately!
supervised!by!a!judicial!authority365!in!order!to!establish!the!limit!
of!the!agent’s!involvement.!
ii. whether! police! had! reliable! objective! grounds! to! initiate! an!
investigation! against! a! specific! target! such! that! they! had!
reasonable!suspicion!that!a!particular!individual!was!involved!in!
drug! trafficking.366!Thus! the! mere! claim! that! police! possessed!
information!concerning!the!person’s!involvement!in!drug_dealing!
is!not!enough.367!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!361!Teixeira#de#Castro,! §§36_39;!Vitkauskas,!D.,! and!Dikov,!G.! (Strasbourg!2012)!Protecting#the#right#to#a#fair#trial#under#the#European#Convention#on#Human#Rights.#Council#of#Europe#Human#Rights# Handbook! [Online].! Available! at:! http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/hr2natimplement/Source/documentation/hb12_fairtrial_en.pdf! (Accessed:!25th! January!2015).! Pp.!58!362!Bannikova#vs#Russia,!no.!18757/06,!ECHR!2011_II!,!§§66_79!363!Vitkauskas,!D.,!and!Dikov,!G.! (Strasbourg!2012)!Protecting#the#right#to#a#fair#trial#under#the#European# Convention# on# Human# Rights.# Council# of# Europe# Human# Rights# Handbook! [Online].!Available! at:! http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/hr2natimplement/Source/documentation/hb12_fairtrial_en.pdf! (Accessed:!25th! January!2015).! Pp.!59!364!Khudobin!§134!365!Teixeira#de#Castro,!§§37_38!366!Khudobin,!§134;!Teixeira#de#Castro,!§§37_38!367!Vanyan!vs!Russia,!$49;!Khudobin!vs!Russia,!§134;!Lijana!Stariene,! ‘The! limits!of! the!use!of!undercover!agents!and!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!under!Article!6(1)!of!the!European!Convention!on!Human!Rights’,!University!of!Wroclaw,!Jurisprudencija,!2009,!3(117):pp.!263_284!
! 107!
iii. whether! the! suspect! had! commenced! the! criminal! endeavour!
prior! to! the! intervention!by! the!undercover!agents!whereby!the!
latter! adopt! a! passive! role! by! merely! joining_in! in! an! on_going!
criminal!activity.!
Non_adherance!to!these!general!principles!may!potentially!verify!the!allegation!
of! the! accused! that! he! was! entrapped! into! committing! an! offence.! However!
when! this!substantive! test!demonstrates! to!be! inconclusive368,! the!ECtHR!will!
undertake! the! second! test! to! ascertain! whether! the! fairness! of! the! judicial!
process!was!unfairly!disturbed.!This!test!entails:!!
b. a!procedural!analysis!to!determine!whether!the!domestic!courts!carried!
out! a! thorough! examination! when! the! accused! alleged! incitment! in!
committing! an! offence! such! that! he! must! have! been! able! to! raise! an!
effective! plea! of! entrapment! during! his! trial.! As! long! as! the! domestic!
court! is!comprehensive,!adversarial!and!conclusive!on!the!allegation!of!
entrapment,! the! ECtHR!will! not! intrude! on! its! process.! If! however! the!
domestic! court! merely! denies! incitement! without! any! scrutiny! of! the!
complaint,!the!ECtHR!must!and!will!have!to!interfere.!
Furthermore,! the!ECtHR!has!always!upheld! the!principle! that!a!guilty!plea!by!
the! accused! does! not! exonerate! the! courts! from! examining! allegations! of!
entrapment.! This!was! upheld! in! various! judgments! decided! against! Russia369!
because! according! to! the! Russian! courts! once! the! applicant’s! guilt! had! been!
established,! the! effects! of! incitement! or! pressure! exercised! by! the! police! are!
eliminated.370!
5.2.!A!Classic!Case!When!Incitement!Leads!To!A!Breach!Of!The!Rights!
Guaranteed!Under!Article!6!ECHR!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!368!as!it!is!usually!the!case!369!Khudbon#vs#Russia,#Veselov#and#Others#vs#Russia,#Lagutin#and#Others#vs#Russia!370!Lijana!Stariene,!‘The!limits!of!the!use!of!undercover!agents!and!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!under!Article! 6(1)! of! the! European! Convention! on! Human! Rights’,! University! of! Wroclaw,!Jurisprudencija,!2009,!3(117):pp.!263_284!
! 108!
5.2.1.!Furcht!v!Germany371!!
!The!trafficking!was!initiated!by!the!applicant!and!the!Court!found!evidence!to!
show! that! undercover! agents! “had#been#careful#not# to#propose#concrete# illegal#
business#transactions#or#specific#types#or#amounts#of#drugs#before#their#respective#
counterpart,#the#applicant,#took#the#first#step.”372#
#
However,! the! ECtHR! noted! that! the! undercover! agent! abandoned! a! passive!
behaviour! at! the! point!when! despite! that! the! applicant!made! it! clear! that! he!
was! no! longer! interested! to! participate! in! the! drug! trafficking,! he! kept! on!
calling!him!until!he!managed!to!persuade!him!into!changing!his!mind!again!and!
conclude!the!sale.!
!
Evidence!showed!that! through!Furcht,! the! investigating!police!only!wanted!to!
establish! contact!with!others! involved! in! the! ‘industry’,! they!had!no!objective!
suspicions!against!him,!thus!it!was!clear!that!he!had!been!incited,!although!not!
instigated,373!to!commit!the!offence.!!
'
The!Court!found!a!violation!of!Article!6§1!because!his!conviction!was!therefore!
based!on!evidence!gathered!by!the!police!following!incitement!apart! from!the!
fact!that!he!had!not!been!afforded!sufficient!redress.!374!
!
5.3.!Anonymous!Witnesses!And!Non1Disclosure!Of!Evidence!That!
May!Compromise!The!Right!To!A!Fair!Trial!
The!use!of! testimony!given!by!anonymous!witnesses!per! se!does!not! in! itself!
infringe!the!rights!guaranteed!by!the!Convention.!However!if!witnesses!acquire!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!371!Furcht#v#Germany,#no.!54648/09,!ECHR!2014_X!!372!.ibid#§14!373!.ibid#§65!374!.ibid#§69!
! 109!
anonymity,! the! defence! rights! are! restricted375!because! their! credibility! and!
reliability!cannot!be!questioned.!!
In! some! instances! the!public! interest! justifies! that! the! identity! of! undercover!
agents! and! their! investigative! methods! are! not! released! during! criminal!
proceedings.! These! include! situations! when! there! are! reasons! to! fear! that!
disclosure!of!identity!puts!the!agent’s!life!or!that!of!family!in!jeopardy!or!when!
if! the! agent’s! identity! were! to! be! divulged,! his! use! as! an! undercover! agent!
would!have!to!be!terminated.#376#
!
Anonymous! testimony! cannot! form! the! basis! for! a! conviction! against! the!
accused.!When! it! is!deemed!to!have!a!decisive!role! in! the! trial,! the!applicants!
should!still!be!allowed!to!put!questions!to!the!witnesses.!It!is!his!testimony!that!
needs!to!be!disclosed;!the!defence!must!still!have!the!possibility!of!challenging!
and! cross_examining! that! testimony! without! the! need! of! having! his! identity!
revealed.!!
If!an!accused!person!is!prevented!from!knowing!the!full!case!against!him,!and!
an!adverse!decision!with!potentially!devastating!effects!is!decided!against!him,!
one!will!never!find!out!the!reason!why.!377!!In!order!for!the!accused!to!receive!a!
fair! trial,! one! must! not! only! be! made! aware! of! what! is! sustaining! the!
accusations!being!made!against!him!but!must!also!be!in!a!position!to!contest!it.!
!
5.3.1.!Edwards!and!Lewis!vs!the!United!Kingdom378!
!In!Edwards#and#Lewis#vs#the#United#Kingdom!the!prosecution!refused!to!disclose!
evidence! during! the! trial! claiming! public! interest! immunity.! The! applicants’!
complaint!was!not! that! they!were!victims!of!entrapment,! since! they!were!not!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!375!Lijana!Stariene,!‘The!limits!of!the!use!of!undercover!agents!and!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!under!Article!6(1)!of!the!European!Convention!on!Human!Rights’,!pp.!263_284!376!Furcht#v#Germany#§35!377!Human!Rights!Law!Review!2012!()!The#use#of#closed#material#may#compromise#the#right#to#a#fair#trial#,#Available!at:!http://www.Equalityhumanrights.com#(Accessed:!15th!February!2015)!378!Edwards#and#Lewis#vs#the#United#Kingdom#(GC),#nos.#39647/98#and#40461/98,#ECHR#20042X;#Joint!applications!dealing!with!entrapment,!but!only!Edwards!was!in!relation!to!drug!trafficking!
! 110!
acquainted!with!the!secret!information!they!could!not!challenge!it.!Their!claim!
was!that!due!to!such!non_disclosure!they!had!been!deprived!of!the!opportunity!
to!raise!any!plea!in!relation!to!entrapment!before!their!domestic!courts.!!
!
It!is!true!that!disclosure!of!evidence!is!not!an!absolute!right,!but!when!it!limits!
or!hinders!the!rights!of!the!defence,!the!court!must!sufficiently!counterbalance!
such! handicap.379!In! this! case! in! order! to! offset! the! procedural! unfairness!
caused!by!the!lack!of!full!disclosure!of!evidence,!the!domestic!court!made!use!of!
special! advocates.! This! meant! that! the! particular! evidence! in! question! was!
subject!to!an!ex#parte#procedure!during!which!neither!the!applicants!nor!their!
lawyers!were!present!for.!!
!
The!special!advocate,!who!is!supposedly!appointed!to!represent!the!interests!of!
the!party!who!is!excluded!from!reviewing!particular!evidence,!is!not!permitted!
to!communicate!with!the!person!whose!interests!he!is!representing!unless!the!
judge!maintains!that!there!is!evidence!that!could!shed!light!on!the!exercise!of!
incitement!by!the!police.380!However,!“the#trial#judge#decided#that#the#evidence#
in# question# would# not# assists# the# defence# and# found# genuine# public# interest#
grounds#in#favour#of#non2disclosure.”381#
!
In! this!way,! the!defence! rights!were! limited! to! such!an!extent! that!whilst! the!
prosecution! based! its! charge! on! the! secret! evidence! to! which! only! the!
prosecutors! and! the! judge! had! access! to!382!“the#defence# remained# ignorant#of#
the#nature#or#content#of#the#evidence#placed#before#the#judge#and#was#unable#to#
challenge#it.”383#!
!
A! balancing! exercise! between# the# public# interest# in# maintaining# the#
confidentiality#of#the#evidence#and#the#need#of#the#defendant#to#have#it#revealed,#is#
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!379!Lijana!Stariene,! ‘The#limits#of#the#use#of#undercover#agents#and#the#right#to#a#fair#trial#under#Article#6(1)#of#the#European#Convention#on#Human#Rights’,!pp.!263_284!380!§20;!Human!Rights!Law!Review!2012,!The#use#of#closed#material#may#compromise#the#right#to#a# fair# trial# ,# Available! at:! http://www.Equalityhumanrights.com# (Accessed:! 15th! February!2015)!381!§19!382!.ibid!383!§46!
! 111!
sufficient#to#comply#with#Article#6#§#1.384##
The!procedure!adopted!by!the!UK!courts!did!not!provide! for!equality!of!arms!
and!adversarial!proceedings,!therefore!the!applicant’s!rights!under!Article!6§1!
had!been!violated.!The!applicant!was!not!in!a!position!to!argue!and!contest!his!
case!in!full!because!there!were!a!lot!of!missing!details!due!to!which!he!could!not!
raise! an! entrapment! plea.! The! judge! could! have! based! his! decision! on!
prosecution!evidence!that!was!not!disclosed!to!the!accused,!possibly!damaging!
to!the!latter’s!position.!This!decision!was!upheld!by!the!Grand!Chamber.!
!
5.4.!Unfair!Conviction!Due!To!Inducement,!Non1Disclosure!And!Lack!
Of!Reasonable!Suspicion!
!
5.4.1.!Malininas!vs!Lithuania385!!
!Police! were! authorised! to! contact! the! applicant! in! order! to! confirm! their!
suspicions.! During! their! first!meeting,! the! agent! did! not! ask! the! applicant! to!
supply!him!with!drugs,!rather!he!asked!him!from!where!he!could!obtain!them.!
It!was!the!applicant!who!voluntarily!offered!himself!as!a!supplier!and!told!the!
agent!that!he!could!supply!drugs!to!him!straight!away,!the!price!depending!on!
the!quantity.!Following!subsequent!sales!the!applicant!was!then!arrested.!!The!
national! court! said! that! the! applicant! required! no! persuasion,! he! found! no!
problem!in!supplying!drugs!to!the!agent!to!such!an!extent!that!he!suggested!to!
get!them!to!him!‘speedily.’#
#
“He#was#thus#clearly#active#and#experienced#in#the#drug#“business”.386'However!he!
alleged!that!their!first!communications!were!not!recorded!on!purpose,!because!
it!would!have!shown!that!it!was!the!agent!himself!who!took!the!initiative.!His!
conviction!was! strongly! upheld! by! the! Court! of! Appeal!which! stated! that! the!
executive! police! had! uncovered! a! criminal! network! by!merely! joining! in! the!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!384!Jasper#vs#the#United#Kingdom,#no.!27052/05,!ECHR!2000_II,!§53!385!Malininas#vs#Lithuania,!no.!10071/04,!ECHR!2008_X!!386!§24_25!
! 112!
crime! that! was! already! underway.387 !However! his! sentence! was! mitigated!
because! although! he! was! not! instigated! by! the! Police,! the! latter! may! have!
actually!influenced!his!decision.388!
!
In!this!case!the!undercover!agent!acquired!the!status!of!an!anonymous!witness!
in!order!to!protect!“the#proper#functioning#of#the#police#drug#squad.”389#However!
unlike! in!Edwards#and#Lewis#vs# the#United#Kingdom,# in! this! case,! although! the!
applicant!was!denied!disclosure!to!the!authorisation!documents390!in!order!to!
keep!the!agent’s!identity!a!secret,!the!information!on!the!method!of!execution!
was!made!available!to!him.!Nevertheless,!the!applicant!submitted!that!since!his!
identity!was!not!disclosed!he!could!not!question!his!general!credibility.!!
!
Before! the! ECtHR! the! applicant! complained! that! he! was! unfairly! convicted!
because! the! operation! carried! out! against! him! ceased! to! be! lawful! upon! first!
supply.!In!this!case!the!agent!asked!to!buy!more!drugs!at!a!higher!price!than!the!
usual!market!value.!Therefore!he!had!actually!provoked!him!into!selling!larger!
quantities!of!drugs,391!leading!him!to!become!a!victim!of!entrapment.!!
!
The!Court!said!that!by!simply!asking!the!applicant!from!where!he!could!acquire!
drugs!when! he!was! actually! investigating! him,! the! officer!was! considered! as!
having! initiated! the! drug! trafficking! himself.! He! also! induced! him! to! procure!
further! drugs! when! he! offered! a! huge! sum! of! money.! Therefore,! following!
Teixeira! the! Police! has! not! confined! themselves! to! investigating! the! criminal!
endeavour!in!an!‘essentially#passive#manner.’392!
!
The! ECtHR! held! that! there! was! no! sufficient! proof! that! the! applicant! had!
trafficked! drugs! on! previous! occasions;! prosecution! did! not! demonstrate!
evidence! that! he! was! predisposed! to! sell! drugs! or! that! Police! had! good! and!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!387!§16!388!§11!_!12!389!§5!390!of!the!controlled!delivery!391!§17!392Teixeira!§37_39!
! 113!
objective! reasons! to! suspect! that! he! was! involved! in! drug! trafficking.393!
Moreover,!by!not!being!fully!disclosed,!the!controlled!delivery!was!not!deemed!
to!have!been!assessed! in!an!adversarial!manner.394!The!ECtHR!concluded!that!
all! this! damaged! the! fairness! of! the! applicant’s! trial,395!thereby! causing! a!
violation!of!Article!6§1.!
!
5.4.1.1.!Dissenting!Opinion!
!In!his!dissenting!opinion!Judge!Barreto!held!that!although!the!applicant!had!no!
previous! criminal! convictions! and! although! the! undercover! agent! made! the!
initial! contact,! the! applicant!was! predisposed! to! sell! drugs! to! such! an! extent!
that!he! sought! to! sell! drugs! to! the!officer,! a!person!with!whom!he!had!never!
met!before.!!
!
While! it! is! true! that! the! undercover! agent! offered! a! substantial! amount! of!
money! for! the! amount! of! drugs! requested,! Judge! Barreto! held! that! he!made!
such!offer!when!“the#transaction#was#well#underway.”#At!that!point!the!applicant!
had!already!agreed! to! sell! him! the!drugs! and! thus! according! to! the! Judge,!no!
amount,! unless! it! was! less! than! that! initially! agreed! upon,! would! have!
influenced!the!drug!trafficking!operation.!!
!
He!believes! that! the!Court!should!not!have! found!any!violation!of!Article!6.!“I#
cannot#see#how#the#police#should#have#acted#differently#to#avoid#criticism.”#396!
#
I!tend!to!agree!with!this!dissenting!opinion!because!there!was!ample!evidence!
to! show! that! the! applicant! would! have! sold! drugs! to! anyone! anyway.! The!
undercover!agent!was!a!stranger!to!him,!however!he!was!not!slightly!hesitant!
to!offer!to!supply!him!with!drugs.!The!lack!of!a!criminal!record!is!not!evidence!
that! he! was! deficient! in! his! criminal! intentions.! The! irony! was! that!
notwithstanding! the! opportunity! to! challenge! and! cross_examine! the! agent’s!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!393!§36!394!§37!395!39!396!§2!of!the!Dissenting!Opinion!
! 114!
testimony,! he! never! did.! ! He! did! not! ascertain! how! the! non_disclosure! was!
interfering!with! his! defence! rights.! Furthermore,! it!was! only! during! the! final!
submissions! of! his! trial! that! he! brought! up! entrapment.397!It! seems! that! the!
applicant!felt!that!he!had!no!other!way!out!and!hence!tried!to!grab!with!the!last!
straw!that!was!available!for!him.!
!
5.5.!Violation!Of!Article!6!When!The!Domestic!Courts!Do!Not!
Scrutinize!The!Plea!Of!Entrapment!When!Raised!By!The!Accused!
!!
5.5.1.!Khudobin!Vs!Russia398!
!This!case!is!factually!similar!to!Teixeira.!The!ECtHR!concluded!that!from!all!the!
evidence! brought! forward! it! seemed! that!when! the! controlled! operation!was!
initiated! it!did!not!have! the!applicant!as!a! target,!but! rather!aimed!at!anyone!
who! would! have! supplied! the! undercover! agent! with! heroin.! The! relevant!
Russian! Law,! the# Operational# Search# Activities# Act# of# 1995# stated! that! a!
controlled!operation!should!only!be!carried!out!in!order!to!confirm!an!already!
existing!suspicion!that!the!applicant!was!involved!in!drug!trafficking.399#!
However,! under! the! same! law,! the! information! which! police! had! at! their!
disposal!with!regards!to!the!applicant’s!illegal!activity!prior!to!the!initiation!of!
the! operation! against! him! did! not! constitute! part! of! the! evidence! in! the!
domestic! criminal! trial.400Hence,! the! applicant! argued! that! the! prosecution!
could! not! be! able! to! show! that! they!were! pursuing! an! existing! suspicion.! All!
evidence!brought!forward!during!the!trial!against!the!applicant!was!that!which!
emerged!from!the!controlled!operation!itself.!#!
Only! one! of! the! officers! involved! in! the! operation! was! brought! as! a! witness!
before!the!Court!even!though!the!defence!team!of!the!applicant!sought!to!have!
them!heard!by!the!Court;!therefore!there!were!no!adversarial!proceedings.!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!397!Malininas#vs#Lithuania#§28!398!Khudobin#Vs#Russia,!no:!59696/00,!ECHR!2007_I!!399!.ibid!§59_60;!§127;!Operational#Search#Activities#Act#of#5#July#1995!400!.ibid#§126!;!Operational#Search#Activities#Act#of#5#July#1995!
! 115!
Notwithstanding! this! prima# facie# evidence! of! entrapment,! including! the! fact!
that! he!made! no! profit! from! the! dealing,! the! domestic! courts! still! carried! no!
analysis! on! any! factual! and! legal! elements! which! would! have! helped! in! the!
distinction! between! a! legitimate! controlled! operation! and! entrapment.! Apart!
from!the!fact!that!the!controlled!operation!was!not!judicially!monitored!it!was!
authorized! by! the! same! administrative! body! which! carried! out! the! same!
operation!whereby!no!reason!was!given!for!it.401!!
The! ECtHR! concluded! that! the! right! to! a! fair! trial! had! been! breached! and!
ordered!the!domestic!courts!to!carry!out!an!appropriate!review.!Therefore,!this!
conviction! against!Russia!was!not!due! to! the! confirmation!of! entrapment!but!
the!unsatisfactory!examination!of!the!relative!argument!by!the!domestic!courts.!
This! judgment!was!similar! to! that!of!Vanyan402#which!was!previously!decided!
against!Russia!on!identical!facts.!
!
5.5.2.!Veselov!and!Others!vs!Russia403!!
!All!applicants!were!drug!users!who!pleaded!guilty!to!selling!drugs,!yet!insisted!
that! they!were! lured,! pressured! and! instigated! by! police! informants! because!
they! had! never! supplied! drugs! to! anyone! before.! They! all! made! clear! and!
specific!allegations!of!police!incitement!and!entrapment.!“They#alleged#that#the#
buyers#had#pestered#them#incessantly,#and#they#had#succumbed#to#their#insistence#
on#the#understanding#that#they#would#only#do#it#once,#exceptionally.”404!However,!
the! domestic! courts! dismissed! their! pleas! and! complaints! without! even!
addressing!or!assessing!them.405!!
#
It!was!alleged!that!police!covert!operations!were!not!conducted!in!pursuance!of!
an!investigation!because!police!had!no!objective!reason!in!suspecting!them!as!
being! drug! traffickers.! They! merely! acted! upon! receipt! of! incriminating!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!401!.ibid§135!402!Vanyan#vs#Russia,#no.!53203/99,!ECHR!2006_III!#403!Veselov#and#Others#vs#Russia,#nos.!23200/10,!24009/07!and!556/10,!ECHR!2013_I!404!.ibid#§85!405!.ibid#§72!
! 116!
information!without!verifying!it!through!further!investigations.!It!was!held!that!
that! since! their! right! to! privacy! was! not! encroached! upon,! no! judicial!
authorization! or! supervision! was! required! under! Russian! law.! However! the!
ECtHR! asserted! that! in! such! cases! it! would! be! more! likely! for! undercover!
agents!to!exceed!their!boundaries!and!become!agents#provocateurs.!!
#
Due! to! the! fact! that! the! authorisation! process! for! the! controlled! operations!
were! poorly! documented,! the! domestic! courts! were! unable! to! review! the!
manner! in! which! the! operation! was! carried! out;! neither! could! it! assess! the!
agents’! behaviour. 406 !Therefore! the! applicants’! allegations! that! they! were!
instigated! to! carry! out! the! drug! sales! were! not,! and! probably! could! not! be,!
properly!examined.!!
#
Hence!the!ECtHR!did!not!find!enough!material!which!would!have!enabled!it!to!
ascertain!whether! the!undercover! agent’s!behaviour! amounted! to! incitement.!
The!initial!phases!of!the!operations!were!not!documented,!“making#it#impossible#
to# verify# whether# at# this# point# the# applicant# volunteered# his# services# freely# or#
otherwise#showed#a#pre2existing#intent#to#commit#a#crime.”407#
!
All!this!prevented!the!prosecution!from!discharging!their!burden!to!prove!that!
the!agents!had!acted! in!an!“essentially#passive#manner.”#Therefore! it!could!not!
be! ruled! out! that! the! applicants! had! actually! committed! the! offence! due! to!
police!incitement.408!The!Court!concluded!that!all!these!failures!had!irreversibly!
undermined! the! right! of! the! applicants! to! receive! a! fair! trial! because! even!
though!domestic!courts!have!an!obligation!to!ascertain!whether!there!has!been!
any! incitement,! it! failed! to! take! the! necessary! steps! to! make! such!
determination.409!
!
“In# cases# against# Russia# the# Court# has# found,# in# particular,# that# neither# the#
Operational2Search# Activities# Act# nor# other# instruments# provided# for# sufficient#
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!406!.ibid#§86!_!87!407!.ibid#§116!408!.ibid#§117!409!.ibid#§124!_!125!
! 117!
safeguards# in# relation# to# controlled# operations,# and# stated# the# need# for# their#
judicial#or#other#independent#authorisation#and#supervision.410##
#
The#Court#considers#that#this#shortcoming#reveals#a#structural#failure#to#provide#
for#safeguards#against#police#provocation.”411##
#
Russia! lacked! a! regulatory! framework,412!and! notwithstanding! that! the! same!
Court!has!found!in!favour!of!violations!committed!by!the!Russian!courts!against!
the!right!to!a!fair!trial,!Russia!has!not!yet!amended!its!legislation.!
!
5.5.3.!Lagutin!and!Others!vs!Russia413!!
!In!this!joinder!of!cases!all!applicants!pleaded!guilty!yet!claimed!that!police!had!
taken!the!initiative!to!contact!them!and!pester!them!until!they!persuaded!them!
to! sell! them! drugs.! The! applicants! “succumbed# to# their# insistence# on# the#
understanding# that# they# would# only# do# it# once,# exceptionally.”414#They! alleged!
entrapment!by!Police!officers!and!therefore!complained!of!having!been!unfairly!
convicted!of!selling!drugs!due!to!being!incited.415!
!
The!Lagutin!brothers,!two!of!the!applicants,!agreed!to!supply!the!agent!through!
the! latter’s! incessant!phone!calls!asking! them!for!cannabis.!They! thought! that!
he!was!a!cannabis!smoker!like!themselves!and!thus!agreed!to!help!him!out.!He!
bought!drugs!from!them!on!3!separate!occasions!and!every!time!!the!purchase!
was!bigger!than!the!previous!one.!The!Deputy!Prosecutor!himself!requested!a!
review!of!the!case!on!the!grounds!that!the!operation!ceased!to!be!lawful!upon!
the! first! purchase,! which! in! any! case! would! have! confirmed! the! information!
Police! had! received! against! the! applicants.! The! 2nd! and! 3rd! purhases! can! be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!410!.ibid# §93;! (see! Vanyan,! cited! above,! §§!46! and! 47;! Khudobin,! cited! above,! §!135;! and!Bannikova,!cited!above,!§§!49_50)!411!.ibid#§106!412!.ibid#§123!413!Lagutin#and#Others#vs#Russia,#nos.!6228/09,!19123/09,!19678/07,!52340/08!and!7451/09,!ECHR!2014_VII;!This!case!relates!to!test!purchases!rather!than!controlled!deliveries,!however!the!principles!established!here!are!also!applicable.!!!414!.ibid#§86!415!.ibid#§71!
! 118!
considered! as! being! “intentional# incitement”! to! carry! out! drug! trafficking.!
However!the!Russian!Courts!dismissed!this!request.416!
!
Mr.! Semenov,! another! applicant,! claimed! to! have! acquired! heroin! for! the!
informant!because! the! latter!promised! to! share!with!him!and!at!a! time!when!
the!applicant!himself!could!not!afford!to!pay!for!such!drug.!The!last!applicant,!
Ms.! Shlyakhova!maintained! that! she! had! agreed! to! supply! drugs! because! she!
felt!compassionate!to!the!informant’s!withdrawal!symptoms.!Drug!users!know!
all!about!the!withdrawal!symptoms!and!thus!they!will!be!more!sympathetic!vis_
à_vis! one! another;! they! would! probably! know! how! bad! they! would! need! to!
overcome!it.!!
!
She!also!alleged!that!at! the! time!she!was!arrested!she!had!been! injected!with!
heroin! and! thus! was! not! really! aware! of! what! was! going! on.417!Even! by!
following! the! basic! principle! of! human! solidarity,! the! operation! against! her!
should!have! suspended! the!moment! it!was! evident! that! she!was! in! a! state!of!
intoxication.418!The!idleness!of!the!Russian!court!was!even!more!serious!since!
the!applicant!alleged!that!she!was!intoxicated!by!the!undercover!agent!himself,!
yet!the!matter!was!not!investigated.!!
!
With! regards! to! all! these! applicants! it! seems! that! police! appealed! to! their!
humanitarian!aspect!which! is!deemed! to!equate! to! incitement.!Although!drug!
users!might!not!know!each!other!they!seem!to!be!willing!to!help!one!another!in!
such! a! moment! of! need.! Undercover! agents! should! let! the! drug_trafficking!
unfold!on!its!own!without!any!pressure!from!their!part.!However,!it!seems!that!
they!have!no! incentive! to!do! so!because! they! still!manage! to!get! a! conviction!
against!the!applicant.!!
!
The!ECtHR! found! that! in! the! files!of!all! the!applicants! there!were! “sufficiently#
clear#and#specific#allegations# that# the#offences#at# issue#were# the#result#of#police#
entrapment.”# However,! even! though! the! complaints! were! brought! to! the!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!416!.ibid#§21_23!417!.ibid#§105!418!.ibid#§37!
! 119!
attention! of! the! competent! court,! they! were! all! dismissed! without! being!
evaluated.!419!
!
The! controlled!operations!were!poorly!documented! some!of! them!were! even!
destroyed!after!having!exceeded! their! retention!period.!Therefore! it!was!also!
impossible!for!the!applicant!to!show!and!for!the!national!courts!to!review!how!
the!!informants!had!acted!in!the!controlled!operation.!Also,!the!Russian!courts!
had! relied! on! police! statements! when! they! claimed! to! be! in! possession! of!
incriminating!information!against!the!applicants!without!having!that!statement!
being!substantiated!further.!420!
#
Due!to!the!incompetence!of!the!Russian!Police!who!did!not!keep!account!of!the!
operation,!the!plea!of!entrapment!was!impossible!to!be!determined,!leading!the!
applicants! to! have! their! trials! compromised! beyond! repair! since! the!
determination! of! an! entrapment! plea! is! linked! to! the! question! of! the!
defendant’s!guilt.#421!
#
Prosecution! failed! to! bring! forward! reasonable! arguments! to! ascertain! that!
police! had! acted! in! a! passive! manner;! it! had! no! objective! reasons! why! the!
operation!against!the!applicants!was!authorized;!it!did!not!manage!to!establish!
the! extent! of! police! involvement! in! the! illegitimate! activity! and! the! nature! of!
pressure,! incitement! or! encouragement! they! had! exercised! vis_à_vis! the!
applicants.!!
!
Following!Khudobin! and!Veselov,! notwithstanding! that! it! had! been!previously!
found! to! cause! a! breach! of! Article! 6! for! failing! to! provide! safeguards! against!
police!provocation!and!incitement,!the!law!was!not!changed.#
#
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!419!.ibid#§74!420!.ibid#§88!421!.ibid#§122!
! 120!
Such!finding!by!the!ECtHR!of!a!violation!of!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!in!the!extent!
of!this!case,!especially!since!Russia!had!already!been!‘admonished’!in!previous!
judgments422!puts!the!national!authorities!to!shame!and!embarrassment.!!!
!
5.5.3.1.!Concurring!Opinion!
!In! their! concurring! opinion,! Judge! Pinto! De! Albuquerque! and! Judge! Dedov!
agreed! with! the! ECtHR! for! finding! a! breach! of! Article! 6! and! for! strongly!
criticizing! the! shortcomings! of! Russian! law! with! regards! to! controlled!
operations.!However!they!also!criticized!the!same!Court!for!failing!“to#establish#
the# requirements# of# Convention2compliant# legislation# on# special# investigation#
techniques#following#systematic#failure#of#the#Russian#legal#order.”#Therefore,! it!
would!have!been!more!suitable!for!the!Court!to!guide!the!Russian!authorities!in!
introducing!appropriate!legislation.!
!
There! is! an! international! consensus423!on! the! minimum! content! of! human!
rights_compatible! legislation! on! special! investigation! techniques,! taking! into!
account,! inter! alia,! reasoned!decisions! for! authorising! a! controlled! operation;!
proportionality! and! necessity! of! the! operation! which! should! be! regularly!
reviewed;!supporting!incriminating!evidence!to!the!operation!as!well!as!having!
established!limits!when!the!operation!should!stop.!These!principles!were!also!
referred! in!the!above_mentioned! judgments!of! the!ECtHR!in!similar!cases!and!
the!Judges!are!here!suggesting!that!they!should!also!be!adopted!by!the!Russian!
courts!to!stop!violating!the!right!to!a!fair!trial.!
!
They!suggested!that!Russia!should!not!only!reform!its!legislation!on!controlled!
operation!in!accordance!with!the!above_mentioned!international!human!rights!
standards.! It! must! also! take! measures! to! accomplish! an! effective!
implementation! of! such! legislation.! They! also! recommended! that! since!
applicants!who!had!been!unfairly!convicted!are!still!suffering!the!consequences,!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!422!which!like!this!one,!it!was!decided!against!multiple!applicants!423!Committee!of!Ministers’!Recommendation!Rec(2005)10!!
! 121!
the! domestic! courts! should! quash! their! convictions.! Unfortunately,! their!
opinion!is!not!binding.!
!
5.6.!Where!No!Entrapment!Occurred!Because!The!Undercover!Agent!
Merely!Joined!In!An!On1Going!Activity!
!
5.6.1.!Sequeira!vs!Portugal424!
In!Sequeira#vs#Portugal! the!applicant!asked!A! to!help!him!carry!out!a! cocaine!
shipment.! Upon! accepting,! A! was! encouraged! by! another! individual! to!
collaborate!with!the!police!to!help!them!carry!out!a!controlled!delivery.!Police!
were! thus!monitoring! the! entire! operation! and!when! all! drugs! arrived! at! the!
final! destination,! the! applicant! was! arrested,! accused! of! drug! trafficking! and!
sentenced!to!nineteen!years!imprisonment.!
The!applicant!complained!to!the!ECtHR!that!he!had!been!convicted!due!to!being!
incited!by!an! individual! acting!on!behalf!of! the!executive!police!and!had! thus!
been!deprived!from!receiving!a!fair!trial.!The!ECtHR!however!maintained!that!
in!this!case!A!started!collaborating!with!the!police!after!he!was!approached!by!
the!applicant! to!assist!him! in! the!drug! trafficking.!Sequeira!had!already! taken!
the! initial! steps! to! commit! the! offence!with!which! he!was! being! prosecuted.!
Therefore,!following!the!distinction!between!an!undercover!agent!and!an!agent#
provocateur# made! in! the! case! of! Teixeira# within! the! same! Portuguese!
jurisdiction,#this!Court! concluded! that!A!had!not!exceeded! the!activities!of! an!
undercover! agent! whereby! his! role! was! that! of! informing! the! police! of! the!
operation’s!progress.! !Without!his! intervention! the! shipment!would!have! still!
taken!place.!!!
The!Strasbourg!Court!still!assessed!whether!his!involvement!as!an!undercover!
agents!had!undermined! the! fairness!of! the!applicant’s!criminal! trial.!However!
the!answer!to!such!consideration!was!in!negative.!A!was!questioned!during!the!
trial!and!also!cross_examined!by! the!defence! team!of! the!applicant!where! the!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!424!Sequeira#vs#Portugal!(dec)!no.!73557/01,!ECHR!2003_VI!
! 122!
latter! had! the! opportunity! to! undermine! his! credibility.! Conviction! was! not!
based!solely!on!the!informant’s!statements,!there!was!other!evidence!pointing!
towards! his! guilt.! The! ECtHR! said! that! it! is! relevant! to! note! that! the! higher!
courts! of! Portugal! had! mitigated! the! applicant’s! sentence425 !following! the!
agent’s! activities,! notwithstanding! that! there! was! no! incitement! or! pressure!
involved.!!
The!ECtHR!concluded!that! the!applicant!was!not!hindered! from!the!right! to!a!
fair! trial! as! guaranteed! to! him! by! Article! 6! of! the! Convention! and! thereby!
declared!the!application!as!being!manifestly!ill_founded!and!thus!inadmissible.!
!
5.7.!No!Violation!Of!The!Right!To!A!Fair!Trial!Because!The!Plea!Of!
Entrapment!Was!Properly!Assessed!By!The!Domestic!Courts!
5.7.1.!Bannikova!vs!Russia426!!
!Following!an!undercover!operation!which!was!authorized!against!the!applicant,!
an! undercover! agent! acting! as! a! buyer! purchased! over! 4kg! of! cannabis! from!
her.427!Notwithstanding! her! guilty! plea! of! supplying! the! agent!with! cannabis,!
she!alleged!that!she!was!induced!to!commit!the!offence!and!had!it!not!been!for!
his! intervention! she! would! not! have! sold! drugs! in! the! first! place.428 !The!
domestic! court! convicted! the! applicant! for! drug! trafficking! after! partially!
relying!on!her!confession.429!!
!
Bannikova’s!complaint!was!that!her!right!to!a!fair!trial!was!violated!when!she!
was!convicted!of!drug!trafficking!after!alleging!that!she!had!been! impelled!by!
an!agent#provocateur.#!
!
The! ECtHR! had! no! doubt! that! the! agent! had! simply! “joined2in”# rather! than!
instigated! the! criminal! act! because! he! entered! into! the! equation! after! the!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!425!from!nineteen!to!nine!years!426!Bannikova#vs#Russia,!no.!18757/06,!ECHR!2011_II!!427!.ibid#§8!428!.ibid#§9!429!.ibid#§13!
! 123!
applicant!had!already!agreed!upon!the!sale!of!an!established!amount!of!drugs!
with!another!person.!The!applicant!however!alleged! that! this! third!party!was!
actually! a! police! officer! who! was! part! of! the! undercover! operation.! Since!
Russian!law!had!not!yet!been!changed,!the!initial!part!of!the!authorization!and!
investigation! process! did! not! form! part! of! the! evidence! and! therefore! they!
could!not!ascertain!whether!this!allegation!was!true.!!
!
The!domestic!court!said!that!there!were!recordings!between!the!applicant!and!
the! alleged! buyer! whereby! mention! was! made! to! previous! sales,! remaining!
stock,! prospective! buyers! and! further! potential! sales.! Such! evidence! was!
enough!to!conclude!that!the!applicant!had!pre_existing!intent!to!sell!drugs!and!
was! thus! not! incited.430!The! Strasbourg! Court! held! that! the! non_disclosure! of!
such!recordings!did!not!constitute!a!breach!because!since!the!sale!of!drugs!was!
not!disputed,!they!were!not!relevant!evidence.431!
!
Another!complaint!was!due!to!the!fact!that!she!was!not!able!to!access!evidence!
gathered! by! the! Police! from! their! investigation.! The! undercover! agent! was!
examined! and! cross_examined! in! Court,! allowing! the! applicant! ample!
opportunity! to! put! forward! questions! to! him! and! also! to! try! to! establish!
whether!the!mentioned!third!party!was!part!of!the!undercover!operation.!
!
Thereby! the!corollary!of! the!Court!was! that! the!applicant’s!plea!of! incitement!
was!sufficiently!tackled!by!the!national!courts!–!meaning!that!the!requirement!
of!fairness!under!Article!6(1)!was!safeguarded!and!not!tampered!with.!!
!
5.8.!Conclusion!
Repetitive! cases! reveal! a! failure! to! implement! effective! domestic! remedies,!
especially!when! the!ECtHR432!indicates!what! general!measures! are! needed! to!
avoid!future!violations!and!the!State!in!question!does!not!work!on!its!system!to!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!430!.ibid#§75!431!.ibid#§76!432!In!Lagutin#and#Others#vs#Russia#
! 124!
become! Convention_complaint.! Applicants! must! not! only! expect! to! have! an!
effective!remedy!within!their!own!jurisdiction,!but!they!should!actually!receive!
it.!However!as!the!situation!stands!today,!those!accused!are!left!with!no!choice!
but!to!refer!their!complaints!to!the!ECtHR.#
Domestic!courts!should!evolve!and!develop!their!interpretations!in!accordance!
with! the! decisions! of! the! ECtHR;! that! way! one! will! be! sure! that! domestic!
remedies!are!in!fact!being!effective!because!they!are!following!Superior!Courts!
which! must! ensure! that! member! states! are! Convention_compliant.! It! is! very!
unfortunate! that! some! states! however! feel! the! need! to! wait! until! the! same!
Courts! finds! for! a! conviction! against! them! before!making! any! changes! to! its!
own!systems.!!
Before!delving!into!the!merits!of!the!case,!whenever!the!plea!of!entrapment!is!
raised,! the! national! courts! should! familiarize! itself! with! the! case_law! of! the!
ECtHR!in!order!to!apply!the!principles!endorsed!by!the!Strasbourg!Court.!Local!
claimants! ought! to! be! in! a! position! whereby! they! will! obtain! an! equivalent!
redress!without!the!necessity!of!resorting!to!the!ECtHR!themselves.!
!
In!Khan#vs# the#United#Kingdom433!it!was! held! that! “the# role#of# the#Court# is....to#
determine# whether# or# not# the# applicant,# innocent# or# guilty,# received# a# fair#
trial.”434#The!general! idea! is! that!a! controlled!operation! leads! to!a!violation!of!
Article!6!when!the!accused!is!provoked!or!enticed!into!committing!an!offence!
due!to!lack!of!safeguards.!However!when!the!domestic!courts!do!not!provide!a!
possibility! for! the! accused! to! challenge! the! controlled! operation! or!when! the!
accused! alleges! entrapment! and! the! domestic! courts! do! not! assess! his!
complaint,!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!may!still!be!prejudiced.!In!such!instance,!it!is!
not! the! entrapment! per# se# which! leads! to! a! violation,! but! rather! the!
investigative!process!carried!out!by!the!police!and!the!lack!of!possibility!for!a!
person!to!contest!the!covert!operation.!#
#
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!433no.!35394/97,!ECHR!2010_X!434!.ibid#§31!
! 125!
CONCLUSION!!
!!
“Breaking# the# law,# in# order# to# enforce# it,# is# a#
contradiction# in# terms# and# an# absurd#
proposition.”!435!
!
A!Few!Final!Considerations!
The! fact! that! in! the!criminal!world! it! is!very!difficult! to! track!drug! traffickers!
has! been! acknowledged! by! the! ECtHR! itself.! This! thesis! has! dealt! with! how!
investigating!authorities!have!to!resort!to!special!investigative!techniques!and!
adopt!a!more!active!role!in!their!fight!against!drug!trafficking!to!overcome!the!
problem!that!victim_less!crimes!are!almost!impossible!to!be!detected.!Members!
of!the!Executive!Police!and!those!of!the!judiciary!should!be!very!cautious!not!to!
cause! or! approve! of! violations! of! fundamental! human! rights! and! freedoms,!
particularly!of!the!right!to!a!fair!trial,!in!the!process!of!investigation!or!during!
prosecution.!!
!
A!controlled!delivery!can!be!a!source!of!legitimate!crime!detection!but!when!it!
is!not!carried!out!lawfully,!it!can!actually!create!crime!and!lead!to!entrapment.!
The!end,!conviction,!does!not!justify!the!means,!the!investigating!method.!Police!
always! seek! a! conviction! and! they! try! whatever! means! they! have! at! their!
disposal!to!get!to!that!end.!However,!just!because!the!means!used!in!themselves!
are!not!illegal!does!not!make!it!a!fair!system!to!follow!anyway.!
!
Since! the! proper! administration! of! justice! is! inferred! from! the! right! to! a! fair!
trial,!there!should!at!least!be!guidelines!which!set!out!the!limits!or!boundaries!
which! should! not! be! exceeded! by! the! Executive! Police! or! their! undercover!
agents!when!carrying!out!investigations!that!will!eventually!lead!to!a!controlled!
delivery.!Although!it!is!impossible!to!provide!for!an!exhaustive!list!establishing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!435!Khan!vs!the!United!Kingdom!(2000)!Crim!LR!684.!
! 126!
what! is! deemed! to! be! acceptable! behaviour,! the! law! should! at! least! give!
efficient! guidance! so! that! undercover! agents! would! be! more! aware! of! what!
constitutes! unacceptable! conduct.! Unfortunately! there! is! no! indication! as! to!
what!extent!are!investigations!allowed!to!be!intrusive,!thus!as!it!stands!today,!
law! enforcement! authorities! have! to! try! and! find! a! balance! themselves.! They!
must! however! act! in! good! faith! and! not! follow! a! malicious! vendetta.! The!
corollary!is!that!their!roles,!duties!and!responsibilities!are!somehow!defined!by!
their!own!ethical!concerns.!!
!
Ethical!Behaviour!
In! an! ideal!world! all! those! involved! in! investigating! drug! trafficking! offences!
will! have! high! ethical! standards! whereby! their! main! interest! would! be! to!
provide! fair! justice! to! everyone.! Considering! the! great! powers! and!
responsibilities!that!they!have,! it! is! imperative!that!those!investigating!crimes!
exercise! their! powers! ethically,! prudently,! diligently! and! responsibly;!
otherwise! rights! safeguarded! by! the! Convention! may! and! will! eventually! be!
breached.!!Provided!that!they!have!the!ability!to!divest!an!individual’s!personal!
liberty,!ethical!behaviour!is!extremely!crucial.!
!
The!Risks!Arising!From!The!Use!Of!Informants!
!Police!sometimes!make!use!of!informants!who!provide!them!with!information!
either!to!help!them!initiate!a!controlled!delivery!or!otherwise!to!conclude!it.!An!
informant!may!be!a!drug!user!or!another!drug!trafficker!himself;!Police!have!to!
be!very!careful!before!relying!on!knowledge!relayed!to!them!by!others!involved!
in!the!same!type!of!offences!and!must!be!very!cautious!on!how!to!proceed!with!
their!investigations.!!
!
There!must!exist!internal!procedures!which!will!teach!police!officers!as!to!how!
to!deal!with!the!information!that!comes!to!them!and!how!to!test!its!reliability.!
Police! officers,! especially! those! involved! in! undercover! operations! should!
! 127!
undergo!training!programmes!to!understand!more!the!informant’s!motivation.!
The!latter!is!not!usually!interested!in!justice.!In!all!probability!one!would!accept!
to! cooperate! and! collaborate! with! the! Police! either! because! he! had! been!
previously!apprehended!thereby!seeking!any!available!method!to!help!himself!
during! his! trial! such! as! a! mitigation! in! punishment;! to! gain! an! advantage!
particularly! in!relation!to!the!charges!being!brought!against!him!or!otherwise!
he!may!have!had!a!clash!with!a!particular!drug_trafficker!and!as!a!vendetta!he!
spills!the!beans!on!him.!There!is!usually!more!to!the!information!divulged!than!
they!tell!the!police.!Thus!society!is!faced!with!a!situation!where!police!officers!
and!informants,!drug!traffickers!nonetheless,!are!scratching!each!other’s!backs.!
!
Informants!usually!have!the!opportunity!to!communicate!and!deal!directly!with!
the!traffickers!who!are!otherwise! inaccessible! to!the!police.!This! is!one!of! the!
main! reasons! why! the! latter! require! the! former’s! help.! Plenty! of! people! are!
usually! involved!in!a!drug!trafficking!operation!making!it!rather!tough!for!the!
police!to!establish!who!the!ultimate!receiver!would!be.!Informants!can!provide!
inside! information! which! would! take! the! same! officer! several! weeks! and!
months!of!investigation!to!obtain!it,!if!he!actually!manages!to!acquire!it.!Officers!
should! not! make! promises! to! these! informants! in! a! bid! to! extract! more!
information! from! them.! Due! to! the! excitement! of! having! inside! information!
police! should! not! be! in! a! hurry! to! such! an! extent! that! they! encourage! those!
suspected!to!commit!an!offence.!
!
Some!of! the! informants!are! those!drug! traffickers!whom!the!police! thrived! to!
arrest! in! the! first! place.! They! might! still! be! involved! in! drug! dealings!
themselves!and!the!intelligence!they!transfer!to!the!police!may!be!one!way!to!
remove!others! in!the!same! ‘trade’! from!the!way,!so!that!their! ‘business’!would!
continue! to! grow.! Informants! usually! form! part! of! a! team,! thus! them! being!
apprehended!does!not!stop!their! ‘teammates’#from!continuing!with! their!drug!
trafficking! commerce.! Informants! can! be! easily! seeking! revenge! and!without!
knowing!police!may!be!assisting!them.##
#
! 128!
Entrapment!
!Controlled!delivery!and!entrapment!are!not! interchangeable.!Notwithstanding!
the!deceit!involved!in!the!former,!it!is!somehow!acceptable!by!society,!however!
the! notion! of! entrapment! is! frowned! upon! and! raises! ethical! concerns.! The!
difficulty!is!not!the!police!conduct!which!is!used!to!apprehend!drug!traffickers,!
but!the!extent!to!what!is!deemed!to!be!acceptable!conduct.!
!
The!underlying!question!is!what!do!the!courts!consider!as!permissible!conduct!
and! when! are! the! police! preying! on! certain! individual’s! vulnerability?!
Furthermore,!the!Court!must!be!very!cautious!to!ascertain!whether!the!accused!
was! pressured! to! commit! the! crime! or! whether! he! was! inclined! and!
predisposed! to! carry! out! the! offence! notwithstanding! any! encouraging!
behavior.!!
!
Entrapment! undermines! the! propriety! of! criminal! prosecution! because! it! is!
considered! as! an! abuse! of! legal! process! by! the! police! who! are! supposed! to!
preserve! the! rights! guaranteed! by! the! Convention.! Sometimes! evidence! is!
challenged!not!because!in!itself!it!is!illegal!but!because!the!way!it!was!gathered!
was!illegitimate.!Therefore,!the!evidence!might!have!been!accurate!and!as!such!
its! substance! is! not! contested;! it! is! the! investigative! method! that! is! usually!
criticized!and!challenged.!It!is!vital!that!police!conduct!is!examined!since!if!such!
investigative!methods!are!not!curbed,!they!can!lead!to!abuse!of!power!or!lead!
high! ranking! officers! into! thinking! that! they! have! more! power! than! what! is!
stated! in! the! law.! Provided! that! there! is! a! need! to! prosecute! the! particular!
crime!in!question!and!as!long!as!it!does!not!conflict!with!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!
of! those! who! are! suspects! and! later! accused,! a! controlled! delivery! or! an!
undercover!operation!is!acceptable.!
!
Police! should! be! accountable! and! not! cause! an! embarrassment! through!
instigation!and!provocation.!They!should!not!allow!for!the!judicial!process!to!be!
halted!because!that!is!what!happens!when!the!accused!raise!various!pleas!with!
regards!to!the!admissibility!of!evidence!and!violation!of!human!rights.!!
! 129!
Furthermore,!national!courts!should!carefully!scrutinize!the!evidence!brought!
before! it!as!well!as!any!pleas!raised!by!the!accused.!From!Chapter!5! it!seems!
that! the! Strasbourg! Court! gives! a! lot! of! importance! to! the!way! the! domestic!
courts! deal! with! the! plea! of! entrapment! when! raised! by! the! accused.! It! has!
endorsed!the!view!that!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!can!be!breached!irrespective!of!
actual! entrapment.! If! an! accused! is!not! allowed!or!denied! the!opportunity! to!
plead! entrapment,! or! the! national! court! dismisses! the! plea! without! first!
assessing!it,!a!violation!of!Article!6!ensues.!!
!
Right!To!Silence!And!The!Privilege!Not!To!Incriminate!Oneself!!
In!the!case!of!a!controlled!delivery!prosecution!will!bring!forward!evidence!to!
prove!how!the!drug!trafficking!took!place.!It!would!then!be!up!to!the!accused!to!
plead!that!he!was!incited,!encouraged!or!otherwise!pressured!to!carry!out!the!
drug! sale!because! the!presumption! is! that! the! special! investigative! technique!
adopted!by!the!Police!was!a!legitimate!part!of!the!investigation.!!!!
Since! the! accused! has! the! right! to! remain! silent! and! the! privilege! not! to!
incriminate! himself,! why! should! police! obtain! evidence!which! in! itself! defies!
the! will! of! the! accused! not! to! testify! against! himself?! When! following! an!
undercover! operation! or! a! controlled! delivery,! an! individual! is! caught!
trafficking!drugs! in# flagrante.#Evidence! obtained! as! such!will! be! later! used! in!
the! criminal! trial! against! him.! These! operations! seem! to! take! such! right! and!
privilege!away!from!the!target!of!the!operation!because!if!one!follows!through!
with!the!offence!he!would!be!incriminating!himself.!There!is!a!presumption!of!
guilt,!not!of!innocence,!thereby!a!reversal!of!the!burden!of!proof.!It!is!difficult!to!
rebut! a! situation! where! one! was! caught! in! action.! Upon! agreeing! with! an!
undercover! agent! and! revealing! how! the! drug! sale! is! to! be! concluded,! one!
would!be!hammering!nails!into!his!own!coffin.!!
Evidence! obtained!by! torture,! notwithstanding! that! it!might! not! be! crucial! to!
obtain! a! conviction! against! the! accused,! is! deemed! inadmissible.! Therefore,!
why! shouldn’t! information! acquired! following! a! breach! of! the! right! to! a! fair!
! 130!
trial,!or!evidence!which!will!eventually!prevent!an!accused!from!receiving!a!fair!
trial! not! be! excluded! before! guilt! is! established?! No! right! guaranteed! by! the!
Convention! should!be! given!more! importance! than!others.! Such! that! it! is! not!
enough! for! Police! to! refrain! from! torture! and! inhuman! or! degrading!ways! of!
interrogation! if! the! rights! as! guaranteed! under! Article! 6! are! not! going! to! be!
safeguarded!as!soon!as!the!investigation!against!the!suspect!is!initiated.!A!fair!
trial! does! not! depend! only! on! the! criminal! proceedings! before! the! court,! but!
also!on!whatever!leads!to!the!trial!in!the!first!place.!Even!if!an!accused!pleads!
guilty!to!the!offence!he!is!charged!with,!there!could!still!be!a!violation!of!human!
rights.!!
!
Effective!Remedy?!
Article! 6! is! linked! and! associated! with! the! right! to! an! effective! remedy! as!
guaranteed!under!Article!13!of! the!Convention.!When!any! individual!alleges!a!
violation!of!the!right!to!a!fair!trial,436!the!state!through!its!judicial!system!must!
be! in! a! position! to! provide! for! redress.! Following! some! of! the! previously!
mentioned! case_law437!one! can! argue! that! if! the! domestic! courts! declare! that!
there!was!no!entrapment!without!even!looking!into!the!materials!before!it,!the!
applicant! concerned!will! surely!not!have!an!effective! remedy.!This! also!holds!
true!when!the! judge!hears!evidence! in!secret!without!having!the!accused! in!a!
position! to! challenge! such! evidence! because! the! judgment! cannot! be!
reasoned.438!!!
In!fact! in!most!cases439!the!ECtHR!holds!that!the!finding!of!a!violation!in!itself!
constitutes! just! satisfaction! for! any! non_pecuniary! damage! that! the! applicant!
might! have! suffered.! Apparently,! a! declaration! that! the! State! has! actually!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!436!or!any!other!right!for!all!that!matters!437!such! as! Khudobin# vs# Russia;# Vanyan# vs# Russia;# Veselov# and# Others# vs# Russia;# Lagutin# and#Others#vs#Russia!438!see!Edwards#and#Lewis#vs#the#United#Kingdom#439!such! as! in! Malininas# vs# Lithuania;! in! Edwards# and# Lewis# vs# the# United# Kingdom;! and! in!Vanyan#vs#Russia#analysed!in!the!previous!chapter!
! 131!
breached! the! applicant’s! fundamental! human! rights! is! all! one! can! get.440!An!
unfavourable!outcome!does!not!necessarily!mean!that!an!accused!did!not!have!
an!effective!remedy.!As! long!as! the!accused’s! rights!are!protected,! justice!will!
still!be!deemed!to!have!been!done.!!
!
In!drug!trafficking!offences,!a!conviction!always!entails!years!of!imprisonment;!
neither!a!declaration!upholding!a!breach!nor!monetary!compensation!can!ever!
compensate!for!an!individual’s!loss!of!freedom.!By!merely!declaring!a!violation!
it!seems!that!as!soon!as!the!Court!was!going!to!hammer!a!nail!in!the!conviction!
against! the! State,! it! packed! up! the! toolbox! and! left! the! nail! un_hammered.!
Thereby! once! the! violation! is! confirmed,! that! is! the! farthest! the! Strasbourg!
Court!will!do!and!go.!!
!
This! is! very! unfortunate! because! if! for! whatever! reason! the! accused! is! not!
found! guilty,! no! violation!would! be! challenged! notwithstanding! that! it!might!
have!occurred.!If!a!mere!declaration!is!what!an!applicant!gets,!one!would!not!be!
interested! in! pursuing! any! action! against! the! State.! As! long! as! one! is! not!
convicted!and!sentenced!to!years!of!imprisonment,!all!interest!in!the!violation!
of!the!right!to!a!fair!trial!will!end!with!the!acquittal!or!discharge.!Nevertheless!
this! would! still! compromise! the! integrity! of! the! judicial! process! and!
administration!of!justice.!
!
Following!The!Rule!Of!Law!
!The! rule!of! law!needs! to!be!upheld!and!so!does! the! interest!of! justice.!There!
must! be! a! balance! between! conviction! and! punishment! of! criminals! and!
prevention! of! the! executive! police! from! acting! in! an! arbitrary! manner! that!
affronts!the!general!public’s!ordinary!belief!of!fairness.!The!general!principle!is!
that! for! the! sake! of! fairness! and! expedience! no! person,! whether! previously!
convicted! or! otherwise,! should! be! subject! to! incitement,! encouragement! or!
pressure!to!carry!out!drug!trafficking.!Although!those!who!carry!out!a!criminal!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!440!An!exception!was!made!in!Teixeira#de#Castro#vs#Portugal#where!the!Court!awarded!him!compensation!for!loss!of!wages.!
! 132!
activity!should!be!charged!and! tried,! their!proceedings!should!not!amount! to!
an!abuse!of!process!which!upsets!the!public!trust!in!the!criminal!justice!system.!!
!
Following!the!rule!of!law,!‘no#man#is#punishable#except#by#a#court’#and!‘no#man#is#
above# the# law.’# Therefore,! it! is! not! the! role! of! the! executive! police! or! the!
investigating!authorities!to!take!an!interest!in!punishing!those!whom!they!are!
investigating,!whatever!information!or!suspicion!they!might!have!against!them.!
When!carrying!out!a!controlled!delivery,!whether!acting!as!undercover!agents!
or! otherwise,! police! officers! should! not! become! agents# provocateurs.# They!
should!obey!the!law!just!like!any!other!ordinary!citizen!and!should!not!abuse!
their!powers.!!
!
Police! should! only! investigate! in! order! to! make! sure! that! there! is! sufficient!
evidence!to!charge!the!suspect.!When!there!is!no!such!evidence,!police!should!
not!change!their!role!into!that!of!an!agent#provocateur#in!order!to!gather!more!
evidence.! If! that! happens! and! the! accused! is! brought! to! trial,! it! would!
jeopardise!the!entire!investigation!together!with!the!evidence!that!was!lawfully!
collected! and! will! also! prejudice! the! right! to! a! fair! trial! of! the! accused! as!
guaranteed!by!the!Convention.!!
!
An!agent#provocateur#brings! the!work!of! an!undercover! agent! into!disrepute;!
the! former’s! provocation! is! detrimental! to! the! process! of! evidence! gathering!
carried!out!by!the!latter.!!
!
The!Police’s!principle! role! remains! that!of!preventing,!detecting!and!reducing!
crime!as!well!as!protecting!the!general!public! from!those!who!intend!to!carry!
out! illegitimate!endeavours.!As!seen! in! the! first!chapter!of! this! thesis,!when!a!
legitimate!controlled!delivery!is!duly!authorized,!the!crime!would!have!already!
been! committed! therefore!police! cannot! prevent! it.!However! they!detected! it!
and!through!this!special!investigative!technique!they!try!to!gather!evidence!in!
order!to!apprehend!those!involved.!!
!
! 133!
Although! it! is! true! that! drug! traffickers! are! aware! of! the! risks! they! may!
encounter,! they!are!carrying!out! illegitimate!acts!and!must! therefore!be!more!
cautious! because! being! spied! upon! is! part! of! the! ‘profession’.# Nevertheless!
Police!should!not!exceed!their!roles!and!entrap!individuals! in!order!to!reduce!
crime! through! the!belief! that! they!would!be!protecting! the!public.!The!ECtHR!
constantly!upheld!the!principle!that!no!person!should!be!made!to!suffer!for!the!
benefit!of!the!public!at!large.!!Police!should!refrain!from!creating!crime!not!only!
because!it!would!be!illegal!and!unfair!to!do!so,!but!also!because!it!would!lead!
the!public!into!believing!that!the!police!would!do!whatever!it!takes!to!obtain!a!
conviction.! There! should! be! a! balance! between! the! public! interest! and! the!
preservation!of! the! rights!of! those! involved.!Police! should! seek! to!uphold! the!
public’s!confidence!in!the!justice!system.!
#
Closing!Remarks!
!Every! individual!has!his!own! subjective!definition!and! interpretation!of!what!
constitutes! fairness,! however,! in! reality! it! is! an! ambiguous! term! that! is!
constantly!being!manipulated!to!serve!the!purpose!of!what!pleases!the!person!
interpreting! it.! This! confusion! guarantees! conflict! because! if! fairness! is! not!
interpreted! in! a! way! which! signifies! a! particular! individual’s! intention,! one!
would!deem!it!to!be!unfair.!!
!
Notwithstanding!the!repercussions!that!arise!when!a!controlled!delivery!or!an!
undercover! operation! is! not! carried! out! legitimately! they! still! retain! their!
dominant!role!in!the!investigative!techniques!adopted!by!the!executive!police.!
Whilst! investigating! and! gathering! evidence,! police! must! ensure! that! the!
accused!would!be!able!to!receive!a!fair!trial.!There!must!be!a!balance!between!
police! powers! and! the! suspects’! rights.! Some! judges! have! tried! to! build! forts!
surrounding! the! fundamental!human!rights!of! individuals.!Unfortunately,! it! is!
the!illegitimate!practices!that!are!slowly!damaging!such!forts.!!
!
!
!
! 134!
BIBLIOGRAPHY!
!
Books:!
• Allen,! C.,! ‘Practical# Guide# to# Evidence’,! (4th! edition,! Rutledge_Cavendish,!
2008)!!
• Archbold’s!4th!edition,!Sweet!&!Maxwell!
• Ashworth,!A.,!&!Horder,!J.,#‘Principles#of#Criminal#Law’,#(7th!edition,!Oxford!
University!Press,!2013)##
• Emmerson,!B.,!Macdonald,!A.,!&!Choo,!Andrew!L._T.,!(eds),!Human#Rights#
and#Criminal#Justice’,!(3rd!edition,!Sweet!and!Maxwell,!2012)!
• H.! D.! Ormerod! (ed),! Blackstone's# Criminal# Practice! (Oxford! University!
Press,!2009!)!
• Hannibal,#M.,# &#Mountford,# L.,# ‘Criminal# Litigation# Handbook# 201422015’,#
(9th!edition,!Oxford!University!Press![@!online!resource]!2013)#
• Harris,!D.! J.,!O’Boyle,!M.,!Bates,!E.,!Warbrick,!C.,!Buckley,!C.,! ‘Law#of#the#
European#Convention#on#Human#Rights’,#(3rd!edition,!Oxford,!2014)!
• Leach,! P.,! ‘Taking#a# Case# to# the#European#Court# of#Human#Rights’,! (3rd!
edition,!Oxford,!2011)!
• Leone,!U.,!&! ! Patrignani,! A.,! (eds)!Human#Rights#and#Crime#Prevention’,!
Foundation!for!International!Studies,!1991,!Malta!
• May! R.,! &! Powles! S.,! ‘Criminal! Evidence’,! 5th! edition,! Sweet&Maxwell,!
2006,!London!
• Oxford!Dictionary!of!Law!(6th!Edition,!Oxford,!2006)!!
• Reed,!A.!&!Seago,!P.,!‘Criminal#Law’,!2nd!edition,!Sweet!&!Maxwell!
• Reid,! K.,! ‘A# Practitioner’s# Guide# to# the# European# Convention# on# Human#
Rights’#(4th!edition,!Sweet!&!Maxwell,!2011)!
• Roberts,!P.,!&!Redmayne,!M.,! (eds),! ‘Innovations#in#Evidence#and#Proof# :#
Integrating# Theory,# Research# and# Teaching’,! Hart! Publishing,! 2007,!
Oxford!and!Portland,!Oregon!
• Sanders,!A.,!Young,!R.,!&!Burton,!M.,!‘Criminal#Justice’,!4th!edition,!Oxford!
University!Press,!2010,!New!York!!
! 135!
• Siegel,! L.,! &! Worrall,! J.,! ‘Introduction# to# Criminal# Justice’,# 15th! Edition,!
Cengage!Learning,#2014!!
• U.!Leone!&!A.!Patrignani,!‘Human#Rights#and#Crime#Prevention’,.!!
• Van! Dijk,! P.,! Hoof,! G.! J.! H.,! &! Van! Hook,! ‘Theory# and# Practice# of# the#
European# Convention# on# Human# Rights’,! (3rd! edition,! Kluwer! Law!
International,!1998,!The!Hague,!The!Netherlands)!
• Zedner,! L.,! &! Roberts,! J.V.,! (eds)! ‘Principles#and#Values# in#Criminal#Law#
and#Justice#(Essays#in#honours#of#Andrew#Ashworth)’,#(Oxford,!2012)!
Electronic!!Books!
• McBride,! J.,! ‘Human#Rights#and#Criminal#Procedure:#The#Case#Law#of#the#
European# Court# of# Human# Rights’#Council! of! Europe! Publishing,! 2009.!
Available! at:! http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/hr_
natimplement/Source/documentation/Echr_and_crim_procedure.pdf.!
Accessed:!13th!January!2015!
• Vitkauskas,!D.,!and!Dikov,!G.!(Strasbourg!2012)!Protecting#the#right#to#a#
fair# trial# under# the# European# Convention# on# Human# Rights.# Council# of#
Europe# Human# Rights# Handbook! [Online].! Available! at:!
http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/hr2
natimplement/Source/documentation/hb12_fairtrial_en.pdf! (Accessed:!
25th!January!2015).!
!
Journals:!
• American!Criminal!Law!Review! !
• Bond!Law!Review! !
• Boston!College!Law!Review!
• Coventry!Law!Journal!
• Criminal!Law!Journal!
• Edinburgh!Law!Review!
• Human!Rights!Law!Review!
• Judicial!Studies!Institute!Journal!
• International!Journal!on!human!rights!and!drugs!policy!!
! 136!
• Journal!of!Criminal!Law! !
• Journal!of!Current!Legal!Studies! !
• Oxford!Journal!of!Legal!Studies!
• The!British!Journal!of!Criminology! !
• The!Cambridge!Law!Journal!!
• The!Common!Law!Review! !
• The!international!journal!of!evidence!and!proof! !
• The!Modern!Law!Review! !
• UC!Davis!Journal!of!Juvenile!Law!&!Policy! !
Journal!Articles:!
• Barlow,!N.L.A.! (May!1978)! 'Entrapment#and#the#common#law:#Is#there#a#
place# for# the# American# Doctrine# of# Entrapment! ',! The! Modern! Law!
Review,# Captain! Gallaway,! Robert! L.! (1980)! 'Due! process:! Objective!
entrapment's!trojan!horse',!Military#Law#Review,#88(Spring)!
• Chernok,! A.V.! (2011)! 'Entrapment! under! controlled! operations!
legislation:!A!Victorian!perspective',!Criminal#Law#Journal,#35!
• Choo,!Andrew!(July!1990)! 'A!Defence!of!Entrapment',!The#Modern#Law#
Review,#53(4)!!
• Colvin,! Eric! (2002)! 'Controlled! Operations,! Controlled! Activities! and!
Entrapment',!Bond#Law#Review,#14(2)!
• Ginter,! J.,! &! Soo,! A.,! ‘The# Right# of# the# Suspect# to# Counsel# in# Pre2trial#
Criminal#Proceedings,#Its#Content,#and#the#Extent#of#Application’,! Juridica!
International!Law!Review,!University!of!Tart!
• Haydon,! J.D.! (1973)! 'The# Problems# of# Entrapment',! Cambridge! Law!
Journal,#(November)!
• Katz,! Lily! N.! (n.d.)! 'Tailoring# Entrapment# to# the# Adolescent# Mind',! UC#
Davis#Journal#of#Juvenile#Law#&#Policy,#18(1)!
• Leverick,! F.! and! Stark,! F.! (2010)! 'How# do# you# solve# a# problem# like#
entrapment?# Jones# and# Doyle# v# HM# Advocate',! Edinburgh! Law! Review,#
14(3)!
! 137!
• Lijana!Stariene,!‘The#limits#of#the#use#of#undercover#agents#and#the#right#to#
a# fair# trial# under# Article# 6(1)# of# the# European# Convention# on# Human#
Rights’,!University!of!Wroclaw,!Jurisprudencija,!2009,!3(117)!
• Mahoney,! Paul! (2004)! 'Right# to# a# fair# trial# in# criminal# matters# under#
Article#6#E.C.H.R',!Judicial!Studies!Institute!Journal,#4(2)!
• McClean,! J.D.! (January! 1969)! 'Informers# and# Agents# Provocateurs',!
Criminal!Law!Review,#1(56)!
• Squires,! D.,! (Summer! 2006)! 'The! Problem! with! Entrapment',! Oxford!
Journal!of!Legal!Studies,#26(2)!
• Stevenson,!D.,!‘Entrapment#and#Terrorism’!–!Boston!College!Law!Review,!
Vol.!49:125!pg!150!
• Stober,! M.,! ‘Persistent# Importuning# for# a# Defence# of# Entrapment’,!
Chronique!de!jurisprudence,!McGill!Law!Journal,!Volume!33,!1988!
• Wachtel,! J.,! (1992)! 'From# morals# to# practice:# Dilemmas# of# control# in#
undercover#policing',!Crime,!Law!and!Social!Change,#(18)!
!
Web1Journals!
• Human! Rights! Law! Review! 2012,! ‘The# use# of# closed# material# may#
compromise# the# right# to# a# fair# trial’,# Available! at:!
http://www.Equalityhumanrights.com#(Accessed:!15th!February!2015).!
• Steventon,! B.V.! (2001)! 'Entrapment! and! undercover! operations! _!
crossing! the! line! between! acceptable! and! unacceptable! police!
behaviour',!Coventry#Law#Journal#,#6(2),!pp.63_70![Online].!Available!at:!
http://www.coventry.ac.uk/bes/law/about%20the%20school/Pages/L
awJournal.aspx!(Accessed:!17th!January!2015)!
• Stone,! Richard! (1995)! 'Exclusion! of! Evidence! under! Section! 78! of! the!
Police! and! Criminal! Evidence! Act:! Practice! and! Principles',! Journal# of#
Current# Legal# Issues,#3,! ! [Online].! Available! at:! http://www.ncl.ac.uk/_
nlawwww/articles3/stone3.html!(Accessed:!21st!January!2015).!
!
!
! 138!
Articles,!Reports!,Papers!and!Newspapers:!
• ‘Entrapment’,# Available! at:!
http://www.insitelawmagazine.com/evidencech15.htm! (Accessed:! 27nd!
November!2014).!
• Guide!to!good!practice!in!respect!of!domestic!remedies!(adopted!by!the!
Committee!of!Ministers!on!18th!September!2013)!–!Directorate!General!
Human! Rights! and! Rule! of! Law,! Council! of! Europe,! 2013,! Available! at!
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Pub_coe_domestics_remedies_EN
G.pdf!(Accessed!:!17th!December!2014)!
• Jerrard,!R.!(2001)! 'Entrapment:#abuse#of#legal#process#for#police#to#incite#
crime',!The#Times,#29th!October!2001!
• Kuijer,!M! (28_29! April! 2014),! Seminar! on! human! rights! and! access! to!
justice!in!the!EU)!'Effective!Remedies!as!a!fundamental!right',!Barcelona#
Escuela# Judicial# Española# &# European# Judicial# Training# Network.#
Available! at!
http://www.ejtn.eu/Documents/About%20EJTN/Independent%20Sem
inars/Human%20Rights%20BCN%2028_
29%20April%202014/Outline_Lecture_Effective_Remedies_KUIJER_Mar
tin.pdf!(Accessed:!13th!February!2015)!
• National!Anti_Corruption!Directorate!of!Romania!(20_22!October!2010)!
‘Effective# means# of# investigation# and# prosecution# of# corruption’,!
Bucharest,!Romania:!OECD.!!
• ‘Protecting# the# right# to# a# fair# trial# under# the# European# Convention# on#
Human#Rights’! Dovydas! Vitkauskas! Grigoriy! Dikov,! Council! of! Europe,!
Strasbourg! 2012! ! http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/hr_
natimplement/Source/documentation/hb12_fairtrial_en.pdf! (Accessed:!
22nd!of!February!2015)!
Web1sites:!
• http://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/file/36aa7f38_8cef_bad7_2f91_
523655be742e/1/Entrapment.pdf!(Accessed:!6th!November!2014!)!
• http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1349807/1/367012.pdf! (Accessed:! 13th!
! 139!
October!2014!)!
• http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1228&con
text=blr!(Accessed:!13th!October!2014!)!
• http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/nilq33&d
iv=17&id=&page=!(Accessed:!13th!October!2014)!
• http://hudoc.echr.coe.int!(Accessed:!17th!September!2014)!
• http://justiceservices.gov.mt!(Accessed:!17th!September!2014)!
• http://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/userfiles/other/4023878_stober.pdf!
(Accessed:!13th!October!2014)!
• http://lawyr.it/index.php/articles/international_focus/item/9_abuse_of_
process_in_the_pre_trial_stage_entrapment! (Accessed:! 22nd! November!
2014)!
• http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/2/351.full?ck=nck! (Accessed:!
22nd!November!2014)!
• http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/2/351.full?ck=nck! (Accessed:!
15th!February!2015)!
• http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1468_
2230.1978.tb00800.x/asset/j.1468_
2230.1978.tb00800.x.pdf;jsessionid=FD0C0273A0925C388097D84B55
711D58.f02t01?v=1&t=i20duvs8&s=6d1313309f8b1d4e767d172dbf0c
494d0d21c2b9!(Accessed:!22nd!January!2015!)!
• http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/586/2/SSRN_id1511629.pdf! (Accessed:!
17th!November!2014)!
• http://totowanda.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/exclusion_of_illegally_
obtained_evidenced_entrapmenti_introductionthe_courts/! (Accessed:!
17th!January!2015)!
• http://ukcriminallawblog.com/tag/entrapment/! (Accessed:! 14th!
December!2014)!
• http://www.1cor.com/1315/?form_1155.replyids=1432! (Accessed:! 22nd!
December!2014!)!
• http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSector
GuidanceSheets/Pages/Fairtrialandfairhearingrights.aspx! (Accessed:!
13th!October!2014)!
! 140!
• http://www.bailii.org!(Accessed:!17th!September!2014!)!
• http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1988/1988canlii24/1988canlii24.
html!(Accessed:!18th!October!2014!)!
• http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/hr_
natimplement/Source/documentation/Echr_and_crim_procedure.pdf!
(Accessed:!13th!January!2015)!
• http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/hr_
natimplement/Source/documentation/hb12_fairtrial_en.pdf! (Accessed:!
25nd!of!January!2015)!
• http://www.coventry.ac.uk/bes/law/about%20the%20school/Pages/La
wJournal.aspx!(Accessed!on!17th!January!2015)!
• http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Approaching_
Allegations_Entrapment_Part_I!(Accessed:!6th!November!2014)!
• http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Approaching_
Allegations_Entrapment_Part_II!(Accessed:!6th!November!2014!)!
• http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/canadasenate/vol2
/chapter14_entrapment_and_illegal_activity.htm! (Accessed:! 14th!
November!2014)!
• http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Pub_coe_domestics_remedies_ENG.
pdf!(Accessed!:!17th!December!2014)!
• http://www.ejtn.eu/Documents/About%20EJTN/Independent%20Semin
ars/Human%20Rights%20BCN%2028_
29%20April%202014/Outline_Lecture_Effective_Remedies_KUIJER_Mar
tin.pdf!(Accessed:!13th!February!2015)!
• http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index44352EN.html! (Accessed:!
16th!November!2014)!
• http://www.Equalityhumanrights.com#(Accessed:!15th!February!2015).!
• http://www.hart.oxi.net/updates/pdfs/cl_entrap.pdf! (Accessed:! 17th!
January!2015)!
• http://www.hartpub.co.uk/updates/pdfs/cl_entrap.pdf! (Accessed:! 17th!
January!2015!)!
• http://www.humanrights.is/en/human_rights_education_
project/comparative_analysis_of_selected_case_law_achpr_iachr_echr_
! 141!
hrc/the_rights_to_due_process/what_is_the_right_to_an_effective_remedy!
(Accessed:17th!September!2014!)!
• http://www.insidetime.org/articleview.asp?a=346&c=entrapment!
(Accessed:!22nd!December!2014)!
• http://www.insitelawmagazine.com/evidencech15.htm! (Accessed:! 22nd!
November!2014)!
• http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1096736?uid=6063856&uid=3
738632&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=67&uid=6063792&uid
=62&sid=21104584205857!(Accessed:!17th!September!2014)!
• http://www.lareau_law.ca/entrapment2_.html! (Accessed:! 6th! November!
2014)!
• http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/the_law_regarding_
entrapment/55972.fullarticle!(Accessed:22nd!December!2014!)!
• http://www.lawteacher.net!(Accessed:22nd!November!2014!)!
• http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf_
files/277887%7E1.pdf!(Accessed:!23rd!January!2015)!
• http://www.ncl.ac.uk/_nlawwww/articles3/stone3.html! (Accessed:! 21st!
January!2015).!
• http://www.oecd.org/corruption/acn/47588859.pdp! (Accessed:! 17th!
January!2015)!
• http://www.oocities.org/veneziophile/cfhl.pdf! (Accessed:! 13th! October!
2014!)!
• http://www.parliament.uk/search/results/?q=entrapment&CMD=search.
run%3dSearch&page=2!(Accessed:!17th!September!2014!)!
• http://www.policeissues.com/From_Morals_to_Practice.pdf! (Accessed:!
22nd!December!2014!)!
• http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd01102
5/loose_4.htm!(Accessed:!17th!September!2014!)!
• http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/policela/policela.htm! (Accessed:! 3rd!
October!2014)!
• http://www.scc_csc.gc.ca/factums_
memoires/33649/FM020_Respondent_Her_Majesty_the_Queen.pdf!
(Accessed:!13th!October!2014!)!
! 142!
• http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2009HCJAC86.html! (Accessed:!
22nd!January!2015)!!
• http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13642989808406778!
(Accessed:13th!October!2014!)!
• http://www.univpgri_palembang.ac.id/perpus_
fkip/Perpustakaan/Pendidikan%20&%20Pengajaran/Buku%20Peneliti
an%20Kelas%203.pdf!(Accessed:15th!February!2015)!
• https://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en_
GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2011/[2011]
%20NIQB%20128/j_j_GIR8375Final.htm!(Accessed:!16th!January!2015)!
• https://www.liberty_human_rights.org.uk/human_rights/what_are_
human_rights/human_rights_act/article_6_right_fair_hearing! (Accessed:!
22nd!October!2014!)!
• https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/C80_98.html! (Accessed:! 22nd!
January!2015)!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! 143!
!UNIVERSITY!OF!MALTA!
FACULTY!OF!LAWS!
COPYRIGHT!RELEASE!FORM!
!!
!
NAME!AND!SURNAME:!!Janice!Borg!
!
THESIS! TITLE:! ! Controlled! Delivery! and! Entrapment! vis_à_vis! the! Right! to! a!Fair!Trial!in!Drug!Trafficking!Offences!
!
YEAR!OF!PRESENTATION:!2015!
!
DECLARATION:!!
I,!the!undersigned,!hereby!authorise!the!Faculty!Officer!of!the!Faculty!of!Laws!and! his! or! her! staff,! the! Faculty! of! Laws! Librarian! and! his! or! her! staff! and!academic! members! of! staff! of! the! Faculty! of! Laws! to! make! photocopies! or!electronic! copies! of! my! thesis/dissertation/research! project! or! parts! thereof!for! educational! and! study! purposes! and! to! make! my! thesis! available! for!inspection!and!lending!at!the!Faculty!of!Laws!Library.!I!agree!that!in!such!cases!I!would!not!be!entitled!to!receive!any!form!of!remuneration!and!that!the!final!version! of! the! hardbound! and! electronic! copies! of! the! theses! submitted! for!examination!become!the!property!of!the!University.!!
!
Student’s!Signature:! !
!
Date:!15th!May!2015!
!!
