Admin
24-12-2007, 05:08 AM
In lieu of questions some people have been asking, this is the law of entrapment in Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada) developed the Canadian version of the doctrine of entrapment in three major decisions: R. v. Amato (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1982/1982canlii31/1982canlii31.html), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 418, R. v. Mack (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1988/1988canlii24/1988canlii24.html), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903, and R. v. Barnes (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1991/1991canlii84/1991canlii84.html), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 449. There are two different forms of entrapment in Canadian law.
The first type of entrapment, "random virtue testing", occurs when the police offer an individual the opportunity to commit a crime without reasonable suspicion that either that individual, or the place where that individual is located, is associated with the criminal activity under investigation.
If police do have such a reasonable suspicion, they are still limited to providing only an opportunity to commit the offence. The second form of entrapment occurs when the police go beyond merely providing an opportunity to commit an offence, and instead actually induce the commission of the offence. Some factors a court may consider when deciding whether police have induced the offence include the type of crime being investigated, whether an average person would have been induced, the persistence and number of attempts made by the police, the type of inducement used (e.g. fraud, deceit, reward), and the existence of express or implied threats.
The question of entrapment is only considered after there has been a finding of guilt. If, after finding the accused guilty, the court determines that the accused was entrapped, the court will enter a judicial stay of proceedings. In effect, this is similar to an acquittal.
The Supreme Court of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada) developed the Canadian version of the doctrine of entrapment in three major decisions: R. v. Amato (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1982/1982canlii31/1982canlii31.html), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 418, R. v. Mack (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1988/1988canlii24/1988canlii24.html), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903, and R. v. Barnes (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1991/1991canlii84/1991canlii84.html), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 449. There are two different forms of entrapment in Canadian law.
The first type of entrapment, "random virtue testing", occurs when the police offer an individual the opportunity to commit a crime without reasonable suspicion that either that individual, or the place where that individual is located, is associated with the criminal activity under investigation.
If police do have such a reasonable suspicion, they are still limited to providing only an opportunity to commit the offence. The second form of entrapment occurs when the police go beyond merely providing an opportunity to commit an offence, and instead actually induce the commission of the offence. Some factors a court may consider when deciding whether police have induced the offence include the type of crime being investigated, whether an average person would have been induced, the persistence and number of attempts made by the police, the type of inducement used (e.g. fraud, deceit, reward), and the existence of express or implied threats.
The question of entrapment is only considered after there has been a finding of guilt. If, after finding the accused guilty, the court determines that the accused was entrapped, the court will enter a judicial stay of proceedings. In effect, this is similar to an acquittal.