Entrapment

R. v. Imoro, 2010 ONCA 122, released Friday, sets out the doctrine of entrapment in an almost textbook fashion:

 

  The doctrine of entrapment

 

[8]              The doctrine of entrapment reflects judicial disapproval of unacceptable police or prosecutorial conduct in investigating crimes.  The contours of the doctrine were discussed at length by Lamer J. in R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903.  He sought to balance two competing objectives.  On the one side, he recognized that the police must have considerable leeway in the techniques they use to investigate criminal activity.  Especially in the investigation of consensual crimes – of which drug trafficking is an example – traditional techniques may be ineffective. 

 

[9]              On the other side, Lamer J. also recognized that the power of the police to investigate criminal activity cannot be untrammeled.  In their efforts to investigate, deter and repress crime, the police should not be permitted to randomly test the virtue of citizens, or to offer citizens an opportunity to commit a crime without reasonable suspicion that they are already engaging in criminal activity, or worse, to go further and use tactics designed to induce citizens to commit a criminal offence.  To allow any of these investigative techniques would offend our notions of decency and fair play.

 

[10]         Lamer J. struck the balance between these objectives by concluding that entrapment arises in either of two situations: first, when state authorities, acting without reasonable suspicion or for an improper purpose, provide a person with an opportunity to commit an offence; and second, even having reasonable suspicion or acting in the course of a good faith inquiry, the police go beyond providing an opportunity to commit a crime and actually induce the commission of an offence.

 

[11]         Ordinarily, when entrapment is claimed, the essential elements of the offence charged have been made out.  However, if entrapment is subsequently found, the court will not allow the Crown to maintain a conviction because to do so would be an abuse of process and bring the administration of justice in disrepute.  So instead, the court will stay the proceedings.