Editing Entrapment (section)

=== England and Wales ===
The main authority on entrapment in England and Wales, held to be equally applicable in Scotland, is the decision of the [[House of Lords]] in ''R. v. Loosely'' (2001).<ref>{{cite web|title=''Regina v Loosely''|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011025/loose-1.htm|website=Parliament.uk|publisher=House of Lords|access-date=25 October 2017|date=25 October 2001}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Abuse of Process {{!}} The Crown Prosecution Service|url=https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/abuse-process|access-date=2021-09-28|website=www.cps.gov.uk}}</ref> A stay is granted if the conduct of the state was so seriously improper that the administration of justice was brought into disrepute. In deciding whether to grant a stay, the Court will consider, as a useful guide, whether the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime.

In ''Loosely'', Lords Hoffman and Hutton indicated certain factors that should be considered in deciding whether proceedings against a defendant should be stayed:
* Whether the police acted in good faith;
* Whether the police had good reason to suspect the accused of criminal activities;
* Whether the police suspected that crime was particularly prevalent in the area in which the investigation took place (''Williams v. DPP'');
* Whether pro-active investigatory techniques were necessary because of the secrecy and difficulty of detection of the criminal activity in question;
* The defendant's circumstances and vulnerability; and
* The nature of the offence.

It has been held that it is generally acceptable for the police to conduct test purchases (''DPP v. Marshall'') or pose as passengers to catch unlicensed taxi drivers (''Nottingham City Council v. Amin'').

Historically, entrapment was common in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, and was used frequently by the Bank of England and Royal Mint to catch people involved in currency crime during the [[Restriction Period]] of 1797–1820.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = How Criminal were the Irish? Bias in the Detection of London Currency Crime, 1797-1821|journal = The London Journal|volume = 43|pages = 36–52|date = 2017-02-09|doi = 10.1080/03058034.2016.1270876|first = Adam|last = Crymble|doi-access = free|hdl = 2299/19710|hdl-access = free}}</ref>

Entrapment by plainclothes policemen was often used to prosecute gay men, even after the [[Sexual Offences Act 1967]] exempted consensual gay sex in private from prosecution.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Livia|first1=Anna|last2=Hall|first2=Kira|title=Queerly Phrased: Language, Gender, and Sexuality|page=337|date=1997|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780195104707|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wfmnli6hW_QC&q=entrapment+gay+men+britain&pg=PA337|access-date=4 February 2018|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Tatchell, Peter|title=Men convicted under anti-gay laws deserve an apology|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/1967-sexual-offences-act-gay-theresa-may-apology-compensation-a7861801.html|website=The Independent|access-date=4 February 2018|date=26 July 2017|author1-link=Peter Tatchell}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Thane|page=135|first1=Pat|title=Unequal Britain: Equalities in Britain Since 1945|date=2010|publisher=A&C Black|isbn=9781847062987|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3IurHTsQdqQC&q=entrapment+gay+men+britain&pg=PA135|access-date=4 February 2018|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Lavalette|first1=Michael|title=Radical Social Work Today: Social Work at the Crossroads|date=2011|publisher=Policy Press|isbn=9781847428172|page=81|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vvWLivzsm74C&q=entrapment+gay+men+britain&pg=PA81|access-date=4 February 2018|language=en}}</ref>