Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T00:57:33.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problems Of Entrapment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

J. D. Heydon
Get access

Extract

The police use “entrapment” to detect and apprehend one whom they suspect is about to commit a crime by providing him with, or urging him to take advantage of, an opportunity to do so. The practice is much commoner in England than was once thought; it raises a number of relatively undiscussed problems which fall into two groups, one centring on the trapper, the other on the entrapped accused. The first group comprises such issues as: Is the trapper criminally responsible? Does the rule relating to the corroboration of accomplice evidence apply to him? If not, should there be any warning about his testimony? Does his conduct sometimes require the exclusion of his testimony as being unfairly obtained? Secondly, has the accused a defence? Has he grounds for pleading in mitigation of sentence? Before looking at these issues, we shall examine the purposes and dangers of entrapment, and we shall see how the practice sometimes prevents either trapper or accused being criminally responsible for certain offences.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , November 1973, pp. 268 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 However, there are useful discussions by , Williams, Criminal Law, The General Part (London, 2nd ed., 1961), paras. 251–256 and 263Google Scholar, McLean, [1969] Crim.L.R. 527, Levy, 35 Sask.L.R. 180 (1970) and Parker, 48 Can.B.Rev. 178 (1970). The substantial American debate will be discussed later.

2 U.S. v. Washington, 20 F. 2d 160, 161 (1927)Google Scholar, per Woodrough J.

3 Justice Without Trial (New York, 1967), p. 100.Google Scholar

4 Sherrill, 20 U. of Fla.L.R. 63 (1967).

5 Hamilton, 34 North Carolina L.R. 536, 541 (1956).

6 Despard (1803) 28 How.St.Tr. 346, 489.

7 Carroll v. Moore (1907) 9 W.A.R. 34, 37Google Scholar, per Burnside J.

8 See , Radzinowicz, History of English Criminal Law (London, 1956), II, pp. 326–337Google Scholar, and May, Constitutional History of England (5th ed., 1875), II, p. 291.

9 Life of Johnson (, Everyman ed., 1949), II, p. 172.Google Scholar

10 State v. Hayes, 16 S.W. 514 (1891).

11 , Chafee, Free Speech in the United States (Cambridge, Mass., 1942), p. 215.Google Scholar Radzinowicz, loc. cit., gives historical examples.

12 Diary (, Everyman ed., 1907), II, pp. 156–157.Google Scholar

13 Donnelly, 60 Yale L.J. 1091, 1126 (1951). This was written in the Chambers-Hiss period, though that case involved no entrapment question.

14 Collyer v. Skeffington, 265 F. 17, 65 (1920), per Anderson, J.Google Scholar

15 e.g., Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution, 1957, Cmnd. 247, para. 121; Home Office Circular to the police (1969): see 119 New L.J. 513.

16 Cmd. 3297, pp. 42–43.

17 Millar and Page (1965) 49 Cr.App.R. 241Google Scholar; see also Nothout, 1912 C.P.D. 1037Google Scholar; Timar (1968) 5 C.R.N.S.(Can.) 195.Google ScholarCf. Smith, [1973] 2 W.L.R. 942.Google Scholar

18 Martin (1811) Russ. & Ry. 196.

19 Dolan (1855) Dears. 436, reversing Lyons (1841) Car. & M. 217; see also Villensky [1892] 2 Q.B. 597 and King [1938] 2 All E.R. 662.Google Scholar

20 Lawrence (1850) 4 Cox C.C. 438; Turvey (1946) 31 Cr.App.R. 154Google Scholar; Millar and Page (1965) 49 Cr.App.R. 241.Google Scholar

21 Norden's Case (1754) Foster 129; 2 East P.C. 666; Anon, (n.d.) cited arg. Egginton (1801) Leach 913; Williams (1843) 1 Car. & K. 195. See also People v. Hanselman, 18 P. 425 (1888); Connor v. People, 36 Am.St.Rep. 295 (1893); State v. Neely, 300 P. 561 (1931).Google Scholar

22 Macdaniel (1755) Foster 121.

23 Johnson (1841) Car. & M. 218; cf. Bigley (1799) 1 Craw. & D. 202; see also Lemieux [1968] 1 C.C.C. 187.Google Scholar

24 Chandler [1913] 1 K.B. 125Google Scholar; see also State v. Currie, 102 N.W. 875 (1905).Google Scholar

25 McDermett v. U.S., 98 A. 2d 287 (1953)Google Scholar; Guarro v. U.S., 237 F. 2d 578 (1956).Google Scholar

26 Mills (1857) 7 Cox C.C. 263; cf. Ady (1835) 7 C. & P. 140; see also People v. California, 281 P. 2d 297.

27 Holden (1809) Russ. & Ry. 154.

28 See State v. Douglas, 26 P. 476 (1891); Sherman v. U.S., 10 F. 2d 17 (1926).Google Scholar

29 Macro [1969] Crim.L.R. 205Google Scholar; Birtles (1969) 53 Cr.App.R. 469Google Scholar; see the Home Office Circular summarised in 119 N.L.J. 513 (1969).

30 Evans v. Pesce (1969) 8 C.R.N.S.(Can.) 201.Google Scholar

31 [1960] 2 Q.B. 423. To the same effect is Mullins (1848) 7 St.Tr.N.S. 1110, 1114, per Maule J.; and see Sahu (1910) I.L.R. 38 Calc. 96Google Scholar; Vigeant (1930) 54 C.C.C. 301Google Scholar; Malinga, 1963 (1) S.A. 692 (A.D.).Google Scholar

32 Dental Board v. O'Callaghan [1969] I.R. 181.Google Scholar

33 Despard (1803) 28 How.St.Tr. 346, 489; Donnelly (1816) Russ. & Ry. 310; Bannen (1844) 2 Mood. 309; Valler (1844) 1 Cox C.C. 84; Dowling (1848) 3 Cox C.C. 509; Wade (1943) 111 J.P.J. 704Google Scholar; Sneddon v. Stevenson [1967] 1 W.L.R. 1051Google Scholar; see also Yuras v. Durban District Police Commandant, 1952 (2) S.A. 173.Google Scholar

34 Mullins (1848) 3 Cox C.C. 526; Bickley (1909) 2 Cr.App.R. 53Google Scholar; Heuser (1910) 6 Cr.App.R. 76Google Scholar; Sneddon v. Stevenson [1967] 1 W.L.R. 1051.Google Scholar There are decisions to the same effect in: Eire (Dental Board v. O'Callaghan [1969] I.R. 181Google Scholar), Australia (e.g., Ross [1955] Qd.R. 48Google Scholar; Forgione [1969] S.A.S.R. 248Google Scholar), America (e.g., Fletcher v. U.S., 158 F. 2d 321 (1946)Google Scholar), New Zealand (e.g., Phillips [1963] N.Z.L.R. 855Google Scholar), Tanzania (Kasembe [1967] H.C.D.(Tanz.) 338Google Scholar) and Canada (e.g., Evans v. Pesce (1969) 8 C.R.N.S.(Can.) 201Google Scholar).

35 See Radzinowicz, op. cit., pp. 329–330, 333–337; Davies (1930) 22 Cr.App.R. 33Google Scholar; Brannan v. Peek [1948] 1 K.B. 68Google Scholar (accepted as correct by Crown counsel in Smith [1960] 2 Q.B. 423Google Scholar). The same is held in: Scotland (Marsh v. Johnston [1959] Crim.L.R. 444Google Scholar), Australia (de Revoir (1895) 7 Aust.Dig. (2nd ed.), col. 1270), Canada (e.g., Tommy [1930] 1 D.L.R. 973Google Scholar), South Africa (e.g., Nkadimeng, 1962 (4) S.A. 564Google Scholar), India (Javecharam (1894) I.L.R. 19 Bom. 362), Tanzania (Nyabayi [1970] H.C.D.(Tanz.) 214Google Scholar), Malaysia (Rattan Singh [1971] 1 M.L.J. 162Google Scholar), America (Commonwealth v. Leeds, 9 Phila. 569 (1872): see 49 Va.L.R. 871, 887 (1963); Reigan v. People, 210 P. 2d 991 (1949)Google Scholar), East Africa (Davda [1965] E.A. 201Google Scholar), and Hong Kong (Kwok To [1966] D.C.L.R. 133Google Scholar). And see the Ouimet Committee Report (1969), p. 78.

36 Guthrie v. Commonwealth, 198 S.E. 481 (1938).Google Scholar

37 See Heydon [1973] Crim.L.R. 264, 270–272.

38 Carroll v. Moore (1907) 9 W.A.R. 34Google Scholar; Privitt v. State, 98 S.W. 2d 204 (1936).Google Scholar

39 Heydon, op. cit., p. 272.

40 Valler (1844) 1 Cox C.C. 84; Barmen (1844) 2 Mood. 309.

41 Brannan v. Peek [1948] 1 K.B. 68, 72Google Scholar, per Lord Goddard C.J.

42 Salmonson, 1960 (4) S.A. 748, 752 (T.), per Claassen, J.Google Scholar; see also Mullins (1848) 7 St.Tr.N.S. 1110, 1111, per Maule J.

43 See State v. Torphy, 78 Mo.App. 206, 209 (1899), per Ellison J. (diss.); Diver v. State, 30 S.W. 1071, 1072 (1895), per Hurt P.J.

44 Revuelta [1959] Crim.L.R. 777Google Scholar; see also Smith v. State, 229 S.W. 523 (1921).Google Scholar

45 Mullins (1848) 7 St.Tr.N.S. 1110, 1116, per Maule J.

46 See particularly Commonwealth v. Downing, 4 Gray (Mass.) 29, 30 (1855); Berdino (1924) 42 C.C.C. 308;Google ScholarAdams v. People, 285 P. 1102 (1930).Google Scholar

47 Ormerod [1969] 2 O.R. 230, 244.Google Scholar Laskin J.A. relied on a number of authorities, some of which are against him (Gilmore (1928) 43 B.C.R. 57Google Scholar; Benjoe (1961) 130 C.C.C. 238Google Scholar), and some of which turn on the particular definition of the offence (e.g., Ear (1966) 56 W.W.R. 175).Google Scholar

48 Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex p. Blackburn [1968] 2 Q.B. 118Google Scholar; ibid. (No. 3) [1973] 1 Q.B. 241.

49 Ganie, 1967 (4) S.A. 203 (N.P.D.).Google Scholar

50 U.S. v. Becker, 62 F. 2d 1007 (1933)Google Scholar; People v. Swift, 293 N.Y.S. 378 (1936)Google Scholar; Guthrie v. Commonwealth, 198 S.E. 481 (1938).Google Scholar

51 Phillips [1963] N.Z.L.R. 855.Google Scholar

52 Mullins (1848) 3 Cox C.C. 526; Dental Board v. O'Callaghan [1969] I.R. 181.Google Scholar

53 Muroogasen, 1952 S. Rhodesia 143.Google Scholar

54 Hills (1924) 44 C.C.C. 329.Google Scholar

55 e.g., Food and Drugs Act 1955, s. 91 (2); Alberta Police Act, s. 14 (1), R.S.A. 1955, c. 236 (considered in Petheran (1936) 65 C.C.C. 151Google Scholar); Ontario Temperance Act 1916, s. 50 (3), as amended by 1917 (Ont.) c. 50, s. 17; New Zealand Gaming Act (No. 68, 1908), s. 54, as amended by Police Force Act 1947, s. 5 (2); West Australian Totalisator Agency Board Betting Act (No. 65 of 1970); West Australian Betting Control Act (No. 66 of 1970); Victorian Police Offences Act 1928 (considered in McNee v. Kay [1953] V.L.R. 520Google Scholar). See also Brannan v. Peek [1948] 1 K.B. 68, 72, per Lord, Goddard C.J.Google Scholar

56 Such warnings are least commonly given in Australia (Davissen v. Dias [1944] Q.W.N. 20Google Scholar; Forgione [1969] S.A.S.R. 248Google Scholar) and in some American jurisdictions (e.g., Dennis v. U.S., 183 F. 2d 201, 224 (1950)Google Scholar, affd. 71 S.Ct. 857 (1951)). Canada (e.g., Amsden v. Rogers (1916) 30 D.L.R. 534Google Scholar) and other American jurisdictions (District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617 (1936)Google Scholar; In re Donaghy, 83 N.E. 2d 560 (1948)Google Scholar) take a wider view. Such warnings are given most commonly in South Africa (e.g., Benest (1918) 39 N.L.R. 344Google Scholar) and Tanzania (Nyabayi [1970] H.C.D.(Tanz.) 214).Google Scholar

57 Stephens (1926) 45 C.C.C. 123Google Scholar; Gallant [1970] 3 C.C.C. 263, 265, per Campbell, C.J.Google Scholar

58 Dowling (1848) 3 Cox C.C. 509, 516; Nat Bell Liquors Ltd. (1921) 56 D.L.R. 523.Google Scholar

59 Caron v. La Commission des Liqueurs de Québec (1922) 70 D.L.R. 623Google Scholar (cf. Proulx v. ibid. (1922) 70 D.L.R. 625); Stephens (1926) 45 C.C.C. 123.Google Scholar

60 Baudel (1927) 45 C.C.C. 266.Google Scholar

61 Fletcher v. U.S., 158 F. 2d 321 (1946).Google Scholar

62 Smith v. O'Donovan (1908) 28 N.Z.L.R. 94.Google Scholar

63 Goldberg (1888) 5 H.C. (Griqualand) 64.

64 People v. Rice, 61 N.W. 540 (1894); Sandage v. State, 85 N.W. 35 (1901)Google Scholar; O'Grady v. People, 95 P. 346 (1908)Google Scholar; Nieden v. State, 234 N.W. 563 (1931)Google Scholar; Clever, 1967 (4) S.A. 256.Google Scholar

65 Goldberg (1888) 5 H.C. (Griqualand) 64.

66 Mahlameni (1895) 10 E.D.C. 9; Jackson (1899) 9 H.C. (Griqualand) 383; Myers, 1907 T.S. 760Google Scholar; Charlie, 1908 T.S. 1144.Google Scholar

67 [1960] 2 Q.B. 464.

68 Kuruma [1955] A.C. 197Google Scholar; see Heydon [1973] Crim.L.R. 603.

69 Marsh v. Johnston [1959] Crim.L.R. 444.Google Scholar

70 [1965] N.I. 138; Sneddon v. Stevenson [1967] 1 W.L.R. 1051, 1057–1058.Google Scholar

71 Foulder [1973] Crim.L.R. 45.Google Scholar

72 See State v. Currie, 102 N.W. 875 (1905).Google Scholar

73 Johnson (1861) C. & M. 218 (cf. Bannen (1844) 2 Mood. 309): see also People v. Collins, 53 Cal. 185 (1878), Love v. People, 43 N.E. 710 (1896), and Williams, op. cit, para. 254.

74 Titley (1880) 14 Cox C.C. 502; Woodham (1924) 68 S.J. 283.Google Scholar

75 Mullins (1848) 7 St.Tr.N.S. 1110; Mortimer (1910) 80 L.J.K.B. 76Google Scholar; Browning v. J. W. H. Watson (Rochester) Ltd. [1953] 2 All E.R. 775Google Scholar; Murphy [1955] N.I. 138, 150Google Scholar; Birtles (1969) 53 Cr.App.R. 496.Google Scholar

76 Sneddon v. Stevenson [1967] 1 W.L.R. 1051, 1057–1058Google Scholar, per Lord Parker C.J.

77 Clever, 1967 (4) S.A. 256Google Scholar; Chando, 1968 (3) S.A. 119.Google Scholar

78 Ahenkora [1968] Ghana C.C. 133.Google Scholar

79 Shipley [1970] 2 O.R. 411Google Scholar; see also Laskin, J.A. dicta in Ormerod [1969] 2 O.R. 230, 238.Google Scholar

80 Osborn [1969] 1 O.R. 152Google Scholar, revd. (1970) 15 D.L.R. (3d) 85.

81 (1969) 7 C.R.N.S.(Can.) 1.

82 Tennessee seems to be the only exception, New York having joined the majority as a result of ss. 35, 40 Penal Code (1967). Some courts hold the defence cannot apply to crimes of strict liability: Kearns v. Aragon, 333 P. 2d 607 (1959).Google Scholar The following is a selection of the vast literature on the defence: Mickell, 90 U. of Pa.L.R. 245 (1942); Donnelly, 60 Yale L.J. 1091 (1951); 73 Harv.L.R. 1333 (1960); 31 U. of Ch.L.R. 137 (1963); 74 Yale L.J. 942 (1965); Goodnow, 45 Boston U.L.R. 542 (1965); 56 Iowa L.R. 686 (1971).

83 e.g., Jindra v. U.S., 69 F. 2d 429 (1934)Google Scholar; Ivy v. State, 277 S.W. 2d 712 (1955).Google Scholar

84 U.S. v. Perkins, 190 F. 2d 49 (1951)Google Scholar; Crisp v. U.S., 262 F. 2d 68 (1958).Google Scholar

85 e.g., Ex p. Moore, 233 P. 805 (1924)Google Scholar; People v. Lewis, 1 N.E. 2d 696, affd. 6 N.E. 2d 175 (1936).Google Scholar

86 Henderson v. U.S., 237 F. 2d 169 (1956).Google Scholar

87 People v. Perez., 401 P. 2d 934 (1965)Google Scholar; People v. Chambers, 289 N.Y.S. 2d 804 (1968)Google Scholar; U.S. v. Johnston, 426 F. 2d 112 (1970).Google Scholar

88 Sears v. U.S., 343 F. 2d 139 (1965).Google Scholar

89 Sorrells v. U.S., 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932)Google Scholar; s. 2.13 (3), Model Penal Code; and see District Committee's proposed legislation, p. 79. Cf. Koscak v. State, 152 N.W. 181 (1915)Google Scholar, where entrapment was a ground of successful appeal against a conviction for possessing dynamite with intent that it should be used to injure property or persons. See also People v. Lanzit, 233 P. 816 (1925).Google Scholar

90 Gorin v. U.S., 313 F. 2d 641 (1963).Google Scholar

91 U.S. v. Sherman, 200 F. 2d 880, 882 (1952), per Learned, Hand J.Google Scholar But see People v. Terry, 282 P. 2d 19 (1955) and Model Penal Code, s. 2.13 (2).Google Scholar

92 Sorrells v. U.S., 287 U.S. 435 (1932)Google Scholar; Sherman v. U.S., 356 U.S. 369 (1958).Google Scholar

93 Sorrells v. U.S., 287 U.S. 435, 457 (1932)Google Scholar, per Roberts J.

94 U.S. v. Becker, 62 F. 2d 1007, 1008–1009 (1933)Google Scholar; U.S. v. Sherman, 200 F. 2d 880, 882 (1952)Google Scholar, per Learned Hand J.

95 Gorin v. U.S., 313 F. 2d 641 (1963).Google Scholar It must however be evidence about his disposition. Hearsay complaints and suspicions are not admissible (U.S. v. Washington, 20 F. 2d 160 (1927)Google Scholar; cf. Heath v. U.S., 169 F. 2d 1007 (1948)Google Scholar and Trice v. U.S., 211 F. 2d 513 (1954)Google Scholar); but evidence of reputation is, and in Sorrells v. U.S., 287 U.S. 435 (1932)Google Scholar three witnesses testified to the defendant's reputation as a rum runner.

96 Hansford v. U.S., 303 F. 2d 219 (1962).Google Scholar

97 State v. Love, 47 S.E. 2d 712 (1948).Google Scholar

98 Sherman v. U.S., 356 U.S. 369, 383 (1958), per Frankfurter, J.Google Scholar

99 Sorrells v. U.S., 287 U.S. 435, 459 (1932)Google Scholar, per Roberts J.

1 But see People v. Donovan, 279 N.Y.S. 2d 404 (1967).Google Scholar

2 Whiting v. U.S., 321 F. 2d 72 (1963).Google Scholar

3 Sherman v. U.S., 356 U.S. 369, 381 (1958)Google Scholar, per Frankfurter J.

4 Sorrells v. U.S., 287 U.S. 435, 457 (1932)Google Scholar, per Roberts J.

5 Donnelly, op. cit., p. 1111, n. 57.

6 State v. Mantis, 187 P. 268 (1920).Google Scholar

7 Swallum v. U.S., 39 F. 2d 390 (1930).Google Scholar

8 U.S. v. Healey, 202 F. 349 (1913)Google Scholar; Voves v. U.S., 249 F. 191 (1918).Google Scholar

9 Capuano v. U.S., 9 F. 2d 41 (1925).Google Scholar

10 U.S. v. Klostermann, 248 F. 2d 191 (1957)Google Scholar; see also U.S. v. Mathues, 22 F. 2d 979 (1927)Google Scholar; People v. Donovan, 279 N.Y.S. 2d 404 (1967).Google Scholar

11 Morei v. U.S., 127 F. 2d 827 (1942).Google Scholar

12 Morales v. U.S., 260 F. 2d 939 (1958).Google Scholar

13 People v. West, 293 P. 2d 166 (1956) (ten demands for a girl in two months)Google Scholar; U.S. v. Klosterman, 248 F. 2d 191 (1957)Google Scholar; Morales v. U.S., 260 F. 2d 939 (1958)Google Scholar; U.S. v. Owens, 228 F.Supp. 300 (1964) (failure to keep appointments to sell drugs).Google Scholar

14 Butts v. U.S., 273 F. 35 (1921)Google Scholar; Wall v. U.S., 65 F. 2d 993 (1933)Google Scholar; Lutfy v. U.S., 193 F. 2d 760 (1952)Google Scholar; cf. Goldstein v. U.S., 256 F. 813, 814 (1919).Google Scholar

15 Sorrells v. U.S., 287 U.S. 435 (1932).Google Scholar

16 Sherman v. U.S., 356 U.S. 369 (1958).Google Scholar

17 Koscak v. State, 152 N.W. 181 (1915).Google Scholar

18 Morei v. U.S., 127 F. 2d 827 (1942).Google Scholar

19 U.S. v. Echols, 253 F. 862 (1918).Google Scholar

20 People v. Makovsky, 36 P. 2d 118 (1934)Google Scholar; U.S. v. Silva, 180 F.Supp. 557 (1959)Google Scholar; Maestas v. U.S., 341 F. 2d 493 (1965).Google Scholar

21 Jones v. U.S., 266 F. 2d 924, 928 (1929).Google Scholar

22 Ibid.

23 Butts v. U.S., 273 F. 35 (1921).Google Scholar

24 U.S. v. Owens, 228 F.Supp. 300 (1964).Google Scholar

25 Reigan v. People, 210 P. 2d 991 (1949)Google Scholar; Cooper v. Texas, 288 S.W. 2d 762 (1956)Google Scholar; Morales v. U.S., 260 F. 2d 939 (1958)Google Scholar; cf. U.S. v. Perkins, 190 F. 2d 49 (1951).Google Scholar

26 State v. McCornish, 201 P. 637 (1921)Google Scholar; O'Brien v. U.S., 51 F. 2d 674 (1931)Google Scholar; cf. Grimm v. U.S., 156 U.S. 604 (1895); U.S. v. Barker, 62 F. 2d 1007 (1933).Google Scholar

27 Sherman v. U.S., 356 U.S. 369 (1958) (five years and nine years old).Google Scholar

28 Scott v. Commonwealth, 197 S.W. 774 (1946).Google Scholar

29 Woo Wai v. U.S., 223 F. 412 (1915).Google Scholar

30 State v. Jarvis, 143 S.E. 235 (1928)Google Scholar; People v. Hall, 185 N.E. 2d 143 (1962)Google Scholar; Barry v. U.S., 324 F. 2d 407 (1963).Google Scholar

31 State v. Hochman, 86 N.W. 2d 446 (1957).Google Scholar

32 Bienest v. State, 69 S.E. 2d 300 (1952).Google Scholar

33 U.S. v. Wray, 8 F. 2d 429, 430 (1925), per Sibley, J.Google Scholar

34 Marshall v. U.S., 258 F. 2d 94 (1958).Google Scholar

35 Maestas v. U.S., 341 F. 2d 493 (1965).Google Scholar

36 Morei v. U.S., 127 F. 2d 827 (1942).Google Scholar

37 People v. Toler, 185 N.E. 2d 874 (1962).Google Scholar

38 Commonwealth v. Kutler, 98 A. 2d 160 (1953).Google Scholar

39 Trent v. U.S., 284 F. 2d 286 (1960).Google Scholar

40 356 U.S. 369, 372–373 (1958), per Warren C.J.

41 Ibid., pp. 383–384.

42 Browning v. J. W. H. Watson (Rochester) Ltd. [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1172Google Scholar; Birtles (1969) 53 Cr.App.R. 469.Google Scholar See also State v. Abley, 80 N.W. 225 (1899); Ormerod [1969] 2 Q.B. 230Google Scholar; Diamantides v. Chief Inspector of Mines (1950) 13 West Af.C.A. 94Google Scholar; Clever, 1967 (4) S.A. 256Google Scholar; Small, 1968 (3) S.A. 561 (A.D.).Google Scholar

43 Birtles (1969) 53 Cr.App.R. 469.Google Scholar

44 Op. cit., para. 263.

45 These factors are considered by the Scots and Irish courts in determining the admissibilfty of illegally obtained evidence, and their approach has much to be said for it. See Heydon [1973] Crim.L.R. 603.