R v Sang

Facts

Sang and Mangan were charged with conspiracy to handle forged United States banknotes, and with handling. They said an informer acting on police instructions had induced them to commit the offence, and they asked the judge to exclude the evidence as entrapment. The judge refused. They pleaded guilty and appealed.

Issue

Is entrapment a defence, and may a judge exclude evidence because it was obtained by improper means?

Held

The House of Lords dismissed the appeals. There is no defence of entrapment in English law. There is no discretion to exclude evidence, otherwise admissible, merely because it was obtained by unfair or improper means. The judge may exclude an admission obtained unfairly, and may exclude evidence whose prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.

Principle

Improperly obtained evidence is admissible, subject to those two discretions. Entrapment is not a defence in England or, in Sierra Leone.

Why it matters

It is the case is the leading case. Section 78 of PACE is the later English statutory discretion. It is noted. It is not a substitute for Sang.

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