Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
The crucial question lies as to what extent is S78 a re-statement of Sang?
Member rating: No Rating | Words: | Submitted: Mon Jun 19 2006
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
The crucial question lies as to what extent is S78 a re-statement of Sang? The entrapment cases clearly answer this point- leading authority in R v Smurthwaite(1994) where the Court of Appeal recognised that entrapment is one factor in deciding whether to exclude prosecution evidence. In that sense Smurthwaite's reading of 78 has now reversed Sang on that point because Sang states that entrapment is not a factor but Smurthwaite says it is. Hence the Court of Appeal laid down various factors to determine whether entrapment will lead to the exclusion of evidence or not. Subsequently in 1998, the ECHR in Texeira de Castro took the view that where there is an incitement of a person who is not pre-disposed to crime, then this should really lead to exclusion under 78 because a person cannot incite a person who is otherwise not disposed to crime to commit a...
Get instant access
- Instant, unlimited access to our documents in full
- Swap your work for free access, or pay £4.99
- To see the full version of this document and 147,187 others
Receive email updates for this category
- Simply tell us your email address and receive a weekly Study Help Email for FREE
- Receive 3 FREE essay views with each email
- Get all the latest essays from Coursework.Info & discussion from TheStudentRoom.co.uk
