R v Christou

Facts

Police officers set up a shop that bought and sold jewellery, in order to recover stolen goods and to identify the thieves. Transactions were filmed, and the conversations with the undercover officers were recorded. The defendants said the operation was a trick and that the evidence should be excluded under section 78 of PACE.

Issue

Are recordings made in an undercover shop admissible?

Held

Yes. The Court of Appeal held that the officers were not interviewing suspects. They were behaving as jewelers. The defendants volunteered what they said. Admission was not unfair.

Principle

An undercover purchase is not, by itself, a reason to exclude what the accused freely said and did. Section 78 is a discretion about fairness, not a rule against traps.

Why it matters

Sang is the entrapment case. Christou is the illustration that the evidence is still admissible. Entrapment is not a defence.

For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.