Under Cover Agent



Under Cover Agent

Introduction

In the books of law and Criminology, entrapment defense is the most commonly invoked defense that challenges the liability of a criminal. The term itself explains the most part of the story. The word “entrap” means “to catch in a trap”. The Lectric Law Library describes an entrapped person as an individual persuaded to commit a crime by law enforcement agents. The law experts use the term entrapped to describe that the accused individual had no previous intention to commit the crime. Nolo's Plain English Law dictionary describes entrapment as an act of police officers or agents (informants etc). Through these actions, they induce an individual to commit an unlawful act with the intention to prosecute that person (Peters et al , 2013).

The defendants use the entrapment defense in situations where undercover agents have laid down plan to capture the convict and persuaded them to commit the unlawful act. There is no entrapment for a person who is willing to break the law and the police or agents merely offer an opportunity to such a person. To analyze the implications and realities of “entrapment defense”, it is necessary to discuss its consequences in the light of such cases. The paper presents a brief account of two entrapment cases and discusses the situation in a case provided for the assignment.

Discussion

The law explains that entrapment defense is analyzed on the basis of the following three postulates:

First, the government agent has entrapped a person if the agent has provided the crime idea instead of the accused person.

Second, the undercover officer persuaded the accused person to commit the crime. Giving an opportunity to commit a crime is not same as persuading the accused person.

Third, the accused was not willing to commit the illegal act before the undercover agent talked to him.

The case of Counterfeit notes (Lewis R V, (William M.) [2005] EWCA Crim 859)

Facts

Lewis R.V arrested for supplying counterfeit notes to two undercover agents. The police recovered a substantial amount of counter notes of 10 & 20 pounds. The man had no history of involvement in counterfeit currency. He met a man named Chris who showed a desire to receive counterfeit currency. Chris was an undercover agent. Police had the recording of conversation in which the accused person agreed to supply fake currency. The undercover agents Chris and Ian arrested him when he came to deliver their order (Taylor, 2005).

Issues

The defense attorney explained that Lewis had no involvement to counterfeit currency prior to this case. Also, he had no history of unlawful acts, but he had relations with people involved in the dirty business.

Courts Conclusion & Rationale

The court rejected the defense assertions. The judge commented that the evidence did not suggest an undue pressure by the cover agents. This was Lewis first attempt to provide counterfeit currency yet the undercover agents simply, provided an opportunity to the convict (Taylor, 2005).

Dissenting Opinions

In a similar case Looseley [2011], the judge commented that he was a man of good character tempted ...