NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL v MOHAMMED AMIN (1999)

[Owen Blacker]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This is somewhat odd -- it reads as though (IANAL :) the circumstances
are not fundamentally different to cottaging offences involving pretty
policemen (that is men charged with gross indecency after a plain
clothed policeman had waved himself at them).  I am sure that this
kind of entrapment has been judged illegal under English law at some
point.  In fact, IIRC, the ACPO issued an advisement for Police
authorities to stop using entrapment as a means of tackling gross
indecency offences...(?)

Anyways, the case sounds like it stinks!  :)


O x
- -----
Owen Blacker
Senior Internet Developer
pres.co.interactive
www.pres.co.uk
DSS: 0x7e3c8eab | 2f45 c60d 6a0a 0007 193d  d994 cd36 e021 7e3c 8eab
RSA: 0x38fee6c3 |      7c41 e69c 5b8a 484d  22af 1859 f4c9 307b
- -----
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine own and do not represent those of any
other organisation I may seem to represent including, but not limited
to, pres.co, Primecom or any of their clients.
- -----

- -----Original Message-----
From: Donald Ramsbottom [mailto:donald@ramsbottom.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 7:28 AM
To: ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk
Subject: NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL v MOHAMMED AMIN (1999) 


Below is an interesting one on police powers of "investigation", leave
has
been granted to appeal to HL, but if they uphold the decision then it
would
fly in the face on both the ECHR and the European Court. Now if the
courts
will go this far to help the police, how far will they go to help all
the
LEAs when it comes to decryption notices etc.

>NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL v MOHAMMED AMIN (1999) 

[deletia]

>Text:

>[deletia] On 22 October 1998 the respondent was driving a motor
vehicle 
>within the area of the appellant council. He responded to a flagging
down by 
>two police constables posing as members of the public. He took them
as
passengers 
>to a destination in the Nottingham City area and the fare was paid
over. The 
>respondent was the driver of a licensed Hackney Carriage from an area
adjoining 
>that of the appellant. The respondent was charged with plying for
hire without 
>a vehicle licence having been previously obtained under s.37 Town
Polices
Clauses 
>Act 1847 contrary to s.45 of that Act. The magistrate dismissed the
information 
>on the ground that the constables' evidence was inadmissible. The
respondent 
>appealed relying on para.38 of the judgment in Teixeira de Castro v
Portugal (1998) 28 EHHR 101 where the court had excluded evidence on
the
basis that it would 
>constitute a breach of Art.6(1) European Convention on Human Rights
because 
>"the two police officers did not confine themselves to investigating
(the
defendant's) 
>criminal activity in an essentially passive manner, but exercised an
influence 
>such as to incite the commission of the offence". The respondent
contended 
>that the police constables had not confined themselves to
investigating
whether 
>a criminal offence was being committed in an essentially passive
manner and 
>were to be regarded as having incited the respondent to commit the
offence 
>thereby rendering the proceedings as a whole unfair. 
>
>HELD: (1) Although it was to be accepted that on a precise and
literal reading 
>of the court's language at para.38 in Teixeira de Castro (supra) the
respondent 
>had been entitled to make the submission he had made, the
far-reaching effects 
>which the respondent based on it could not be accepted by the court.
(2) It 
>was necessary for the court to look at the whole of that case and its
specific 
>facts and compare it to the respondent's case where the criminal act
was of 
>a much more minor nature and the circumstances simpler. On the basis
of the 
>facts of the respondent's case it could not be concluded that he had
been
pressured 
>or incited into committing an offence. (3) Therefore it could not be
concluded 
>that on the facts the admission of the evidence of the police
constables would 
>have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that
the court 
>ought not to admit it. 
>
>Appeal allowed. Leave to the House of Lords granted. 
>
>Appearances:
>Clive Lewis instructed by the solicitor to Nottingham City Council
for the 
>appellant. Michael Beloff QC and Helen Mountfield instructed by the
Nelsons 
>(Nottingham) for the respondent. 
>
>References:
>LTL 15/11/99 EXTEMPORE : TLR 2/12/99
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQA/AwUBOEfTzs024CF+PI6rEQKR7QCg4Tm/0yae6hGg25jeyM42wNG7JQAAnRZg
cwitguvzxAZ4wwzwmxcl1xeP
=b2tR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----