What is entrapment evidence?
Entrapment ‘involves unlawful conduct by the state or its agents in instigating, cajoling or pressuring the defendant into committing an offence which he would not otherwise have done…. the evidence is then used to prosecute the defendant for the offence which he was instigated to commit’ (Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis at paragraph 53).
The following factors highlighted by eminent Singaporean criminal law don, Professor Ho Hock Lai, provide some guidance in determining whether an evidence was obtained by entrapment;
1. whether there was intentional temptation,
2. whether the nature of the operation was covert and deceitful,
3. what the aims of the operation were,
4. whether the entrappers were state agents such as law enforcement agencies, and
5. whether the intentional temptation caused the accused to commit the charged offence.
Why is entrapment evidence objectionable?
In presenting evidence at a criminal trial, the overarching concern of the Court is whether the evidence is reliable. Reliability of evidence is an important consideration as convictions and acquittals in a criminal trial are made precisely on the basis of a judge’s assessment of such evidence. Entrapment evidence is considered to be reliable as it is obtained by state law enforcement agencies and captures the defendant in the act of committing a crime. Hence, the real objection to entrapment evidence stems from the manner in which it is obtained by essentially ‘tricking’ the defendant into committing a crime.
Is entrapment evidence admissible in Singapore?
The specific position of the law in Singapore on entrapment evidence is still yet to be settled conclusively. Generally, all evidence relevant to a trial is admissible in Singaporean Courts unless it has been specifically deemed inadmissible by written legislation. On this basis, entrapment evidence is likely admissible in Courts under the current laws. The justification for this position is that even though the accused was ‘tricked’ into committing a crime, the fact of the matter is that he or she did form the mental intention to commit a criminal offence. This would show that the accused person is pre-disposed to committing such offences even if the instigators had not been law enforcement officers.
0 comments :
Post a Comment