Moore & Anor, R. v

An entrapment stay is concerned with preventing a serious misuse of state power, rather than excusing a defendant who has committed an offence. The decisive question is whether the police conduct was so seriously improper that prosecution would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The assessment is fact-sensitive. Relevant matters include the basis for the operation, its authorisation and supervision, necessity and proportionality, whether officers provided only an unexceptional opportunity, and the reliability of the evidence. An undercover officer may make a general request for drugs in a properly authorised operation. There is no entrapment without pressure, persuasion or a significant inducement which lures the defendant into offending.

The appellants pleaded guilty after the Crown Court at Blackfriars refused their applications to stay the indictments for abuse of process. Mia Moore had supplied or been concerned in the supply of cocaine on several occasions, and had also committed handling and counterfeit-note offences. Ben Burrows was present for one cocaine transaction and handed the drugs to an undercover officer.

The undercover operation sought to investigate serious drug and firearms offending in Abbeywood. Its officers built their criminal cover by selling cheap goods. Moore contended that this had made her dependent on the officers and that their first general enquiry about cocaine entrapped her. The appeals were limited to the refusal of a stay on that ground.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The trial judge was entitled to find that the prosecutions were not an abuse of process. If Moore's appeal failed, Burrows's dependent appeal necessarily failed.

2. The governing question, derived from R v Looseley [2000] UKHL 53, was whether the conduct of the police was so seriously improper as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The purpose of a stay is to prevent the state from creating crime through unacceptable conduct. The inquiry is intensely fact-sensitive and cannot be resolved by a single formula.

3. The court considered the reasonable basis for the operation, its authorisation and supervision, the necessity and proportionality of covert drug detection, the nature of the opportunity presented, and the authentication of the evidence. A technical failure expressly to authorise the sale of cheap goods did not itself make the operation abusive. The operation was supervised, purchases of drugs were authorised, and the breach did not determine the entrapment issue.

4. The officers did not seek Moore out. After an introduction by her step-father, she initiated contact to buy goods. Before drugs were discussed, she had bought only two modest quantities of cheap goods. When asked generally whether anyone locally could supply cocaine, she immediately volunteered that she could obtain ounce quantities and thereafter participated willingly in repeated substantial supplies. The officers applied no pressure, persuasion or significant inducement, and did not make cheap goods conditional on her supplying drugs.

5. The case was materially closer to R v M [2011] EWCA Crim 648 than to Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 2000) [2000] UKHL 53. Even assuming Moore had not previously supplied drugs and would not have done so but for the opportunity, the officers had provided an opportunity rather than created her offending. Moore bore the burden of proving abuse on the balance of probabilities and had not established facts requiring a different conclusion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeals against conviction dismissed: [2013] EWCA Crim 85.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars: Applications to stay the indictments for abuse of process on grounds including entrapment were refused. The appellants then pleaded guilty. Moore was sentenced to four years and eight months’ imprisonment, and Burrows received a suspended sentence with unpaid work.