Provocation policière

Ang

• < Droit pénal
• < Défenses

Principes généraux

La provocation policière fait référence à la défense juridique que peut invoquer un accusé en réponse à la preuve de la perpétration d'un crime. Une allégation avérée de provocation policière entraînera la suspension de la procédure.

La défense de provocation policière n’est pas une justification ou une excuse traditionnelle. Il s'agit d'une forme de demande d'abus de procédure entraînant une suspension de la procédure. La demande est distincte de la question de la culpabilité ou de l'innocence et est traitée séparément d'un procès sur le fond.

La provocation policière n'est pas un moyen de défense formel en droit, mais plutôt une interdiction procédurale de condamner sur la base d'un abus de procédure et d'équité.

La doctrine repose en partie sur l'idée selon laquelle certaines tactiques policières « ne laissent aucune place à la formation d'intentions criminelles indépendantes de la part de l'accusé » et qu'ils ne devraient donc pas être tenus responsables.

La doctrine n'est pas la même que la doctrine de « l'innocence en jeu », qui se rapporte à la norme d'annulation du privilège. Le privilège ne peut être annulé que dans les cas les plus « flagrants et choquants ».

Objectif

Le but de la doctrine de la provocation policière « reflète la désapprobation judiciaire de la conduite inacceptable de la police ou des procureurs dans les enquêtes sur les crimes. » Il met en balance les intérêts de la flexibilité de la police dans « les techniques qu'elle utilise pour enquêter sur les activités criminelles » -- en particulier dans les « crimes consensuels » qui sont difficiles à détecter par la criminalité conventionnelle -- avec l'utilisation de « techniques qui heurteraient nos notions de décence et d'équité ». jouer." Il permet aux tribunaux d'éliminer « les techniques d'application de la loi qui impliquent un comportement que les citoyens ne peuvent pas tolérer ». La doctrine existe car les valeurs de « notre système démocratique » incluent l’idée que la fin ne justifie pas les moyens. »

Availability

A defence is available when:

1. the authorities provide a person with an opportunity to commit an offence without acting on a reasonable suspicion that this person is already engaged in criminal activity ;
2. the authorities provide a person with an opportunity to commit an offence without acting pursuant to bona fide inquiries; or
3. although having such a reasonable suspicion or acting in the course of a bona fide inquiry, they go beyond providing an opportunity and induce the commission of an offence.

It should only be granted in the "clearest of cases." Such as where the "administration of justice has been brought into disrepute."

Burden of Proof

Before an application for a stay can be made, the trier-of-fact must be satisfied that the Crown has proven the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Once the Crown has discharged its burden, the accused bears the burden of proof to "demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the prosecution is an abuse of process." The standard of proof required by the accused is on the balance of probabilities.

The burden should be high as "[t]he state must be given substantial room to develop techniques which assist it in its fight against crime in society."

With respect to the entrapment test requiing reasonable suspicion, the burden is upon the defence to establish on balance of probabilities that "neither of those criteria is satsified]."

The burden being on the accused does not have connection to the presumption of innocence.

The existence of entrapment is a question that can only be answered by the judge and not the jury.

Appellate Review

The issue of entrapment is a question of law or mixed fact and law.

Reasonable Suspicion

The requirement of "reasonable suspicion" before providing an opportunity to commit an offence exists between "suspicion" and "reasonable grounds."

What constitutes "reasonable suspicion" will vary on the circumstances. It depends on the information and its reliability but will be necessarily be "low."

Random Virtue Testing

Police are not permitted to engage in random "Random virtue testing" (RVT).

RVT exists where the officer has no suspicion that:

1. the person is already engaged in the particular criminal activity, or
2. the physical location with which the person is associated is a place where the particular criminal activity is likely occurring.

Certain provinces have found that RVT by police, such as randomly calling phone numbers found on a suspect's cell phone in hope of catching a drug trafficker, oversteps their bounds of bona fides police investigations.

Conducting a a DNA canvass of suspects has been upheld as a valid investigation technique.

Already Engaged in Criminal Activity

An invitation to treat (as opposed to an offer) is presumptively sufficient to establish that the suspect "is already engaged in the proposed criminal enterprise".

Bona Fides Inquiry

An "exception to [the rule establishing entrapment] arises when the police undertake a bona fide investigation directed at an area where it is reasonably suspected that criminal activity is occurring. When such a location is defined with sufficient precision, the police may present any person associated with the area with the opportunity to commit the particular offence. Such randomness is permissible within the scope of a bona fide inquiry."

Opportunity to Commit an Offence

There is nothing wrong with police "opening up a dialogue" or initiating "exploratory conversation" that is short of offering an opportunity to incriminate himself.

Police may "present an opportunity to commit a particular crime to a person who arouses a [reasonable] suspicion that he or she is already engaged in the particular activity."

Opportunity to Commit vs Exploratory Inquiry

There is a distinction between making an opportunity to commit an offence and simply investigating a tip through exploratory inquiry.

In drug trafficking context, statements such as “can you meet me?” and “where are you?” were held to fall short of an opportunity to commit.

Inducements

An inducement occurs where "the police have gone beyond merely providing the opportunity for the commission of a crime and have entered into the realm of the manufacturer of criminal conduct."

The character of the inducement does not necessarily have to be "deceit, fraud, trickery or reward", but can include "calculated inveigling and persistent importuning."

One approach would be "to consider whether the average person, with both strengths and weaknesses, in the position of the accused would be induced into the commission of a crime."

Factors to be considered whether the police went beyond "providing an opportunity to commit an offence" include but are not limited to:

• the type of crime being investigated and the availability of other techniques for the police detection of its commission;
• whether an average person, with both strengths and weaknesses, in the position of the accused would be induced into the commission of a crime;
• the persistence and number of attempts made by the police before the accused agreed to committing the offence;
• the type of inducement used by the police including: deceit, fraud, trickery or reward;
• the timing of the police conduct, in particular whether the police have instigated the offence or became involved in ongoing criminal activity;
• whether the police conduct involves an exploitation of human characteristics such as the emotions of compassion, sympathy and friendship;
• whether the police appear to have exploited a particular vulnerability of a person such as a mental handicap or a substance addiction;
• the proportionality between the police involvement, as compared to the accused, including an assessment of the degree of harm caused or risked by the police, as compared to the accused, and the commission of any illegal acts by the police themselves;
• the existence of any threats, implied or express, made to the accused by the police or their agents;
• whether the police conduct is directed at undermining other constitutional values.

Application to Specific Offences

Drug Trafficking

An undercover officer who attempts to buy drugs from someone suspected of selling drugs does not constitute entrapment.

Police however cannot offer a person who answer the phone an opportunity to commit an offence without first a reasonable suspicion that that person or that number is engaging in criminal activity.

Police appeared to be permitted to "achieve a level of reasonable suspicion by engaging in the preliminaries of a drug transaction" such as by asking for a drug "hook up."

Virtual Spaces

Virtual spaces are unique from real world places as it provides unrestricted ability to randomly virtue test anyone on the internet through fictitious personas.

Police can only present opportunities to commit offences where either:

1. there is a reasonable suspicion that the target is already engaging in criminal activity; or,
2. there is a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring in a "specific" and "precise" online "space".

The investigation must be properly tailored having consideration for the following factors:

1. the seriousness of the crime in question;
2. the time of day and the number of activities and persons who might be affected;
3. whether racial profiling, stereotyping or reliance on vulnerabilities played a part in the selection of the location;
4. the level of privacy expected in the area or space;
5. the importance of the virtual space to freedom of expression; and
6. the availability of other, less intrusive investigative techniques.

Police are permitted to engage people on the internet in regions on the internet such as Craigslist in the same manner that police enter into bad neighbourhoods for engaging people for known known drug dealing activity.

Merely making contact with someone online does not amount to creating an opportunity to offend.

Where the suspect takes the lead in directing the conversation then the officer is not "offering an opportunity to commit to commit an offence."

Ensnaring accused through the posting of false online ads advertising underage prostitutes is not generally entrapment.

An officer should not engage in communication "of a sexual provocation nature" until the reasonable suspicion has been formed.

Non-Criminal Offences

The defence of entrapment is not permitted in regulatory offences such as the sale of tobacco to minors. Random virtue testing is available.

Procedure

A defence of entrapment cannot be advanced until after the crown has proven all of the elements of the offence and there is a finding of guilt. A "two-stage trial" must be undertaken. First, the question of guilt is determined. If found guilty, the judge determines whether there was entrapment.

The decision of whether entrapment exists is in the authority of the trial judge and not the jury.

Entrapment on Guilty Plea

The entrapment defence may be raised after a plea of guilty.

Disclosing Evidence of Entrapment

Evidence of entrapment, irrespective of its value towards guilt, must be disclosed at the earliest opportunity.

Remedy

The usual remedy for entrapment is a stay of proceedings under section 24 (one) and not merely an exclusion of evidence under section 24 (2). It is generally said that the alternative remedy of exclusion of evidence is not appropriate given that the unfairness relates to the proceedings having ever begun.

Reasonable Suspicion

• See Reasonable Suspicion

See Also

• Admissions from Mr Big Operations