Ridgeway V. R: Entrapment In Australia

Introduction

International entertainment industries have profited billions directly from motion pictures concerning entrapment. The basic premise is alike throughout each title, an alpha and occasionally rogue officer of the law accepts an undercover mission to detain a notorious criminal of the underworld, though enjoyable the legality and morality of the protagonist’s actions are rarely examined. Entrapment is the term used to describe cases of which police induce or facilitate a person to commit a crime he or her are unlikely to commit, then proceed to subsequently prosecute said person. The term entrapment is often applied to both proper and improper conduct, it is in the latter sense the term shall be used in this paper. The mortality

A landmark case in Australia remains Ridgeway v R, a case considerably substantial as it caused a vast echo sufficient enough to cause legislation to be enacted. The facts in Ridgeway revolved around John Anthony Ridgeway, participating in controlled importation of 140.4 gram of Heroin into Australia. An informant remained unscathed by customs and delivered the drugs to Mr Ridgeway, leading to an arrest by the Australia Federal Police. Chief Justice Mason delivered a decision of Ridgeway not guilty, due to no evidence of the heroin being imported into Australia. The effect of the Ridgeway decision was that all evidence of the commission of an offence is liable to be excluded if that offence was the product of entrapment by law enforcement officers or agents. Presently in Commonwealth common law and statute systems it must be clarified that there is no defence for entrapment. Ridgeway caused an implementation of numerous statutory protections for police officers at Queensland and Commonwealth levels of government. Since Ridgeway, the Crimes Act 1994 has been amended to enact a scheme to authorize participation in otherwise unlawful activities for investigative purposes. Section 15G of the crimes act seeks ‘to provide for the authorisation, conduct and monitoring of controlled operations; to exempt from criminal liability and to indemnify from civil liability law enforcement officers.’ Consequent to this

Entrapment gain prominence in the Commonwealth system in England by means of a case in the House of Lords. Said case is R v Sang. A case heard in 1980, Sang firmly expressed the position that entrapment did not provide a power to exclude evidence which may well articulate a dismissal of a trial. Sang’s position remained and applied through English and Australian uppermost courts. As aforementioned Ridgeway distinguished Sang and formed jurisprudence in the Australian legal system. England’s breakthrough case in respect to entrapment was House of Lords case R v Loosley, heard in 2001. A dismissal of the case (grant of stay in English terms) is granted if the conduct of the officers was improper, the question of improper conduct is decided on whether the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime. Varying factors are outlined by Lord Hoffman to decide for or against a dismissal on grounds of entrapment; these vitiating factors have yet to be applied in a future case, however was distinguished by R v Priest in an Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. It remains transparently evident that alike to Australia, England is ‘on the fence’ in regards to entrapment, though the Queensland state seems to be the front runner in regards to regulating entrapment accusations by means of the