CONTROLLEDDELIVERYAND ENTRAPMENTVIS1À1VISTHE RIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALIN DRUGTRAFFICKING OFFENCES JaniceBorg Thesissubmittedinpartialfulfilmentofthe degreeofdoctoroflaws(ll.d.) FacultyofLaws UniversityofMalta May2015
University of Malta Library Electronic Thesis & Dissertations (ETD) Repository The copyright of this thesis/dissertation belongs to the author. The author s rights in respect of this work are as defined by the Copyright Act (Chapter 415) of the Laws of Malta or as modified by any successive legislation. Users may access this full-text thesis/dissertation and can make use of the information contained in accordance with the Copyright Act provided that the author must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the prior permission of the copyright holder.
DeclarationofAuthorship I, Janice' Borg, declare that this thesis entitled Controlled' Delivery' and' Entrapment'vis7à7vis'the'Right'to'a'Fair'Trial'in'Drug'Trafficking'Offences andtheworkpresentedinitaremyown. Iconfirmthat: Thewordcountofthethesisis34,011words. This work was done in partial fulfilment for the degree of Doctor' of' Laws'attheFacultyofLawsoftheUniversityofMalta. Whereanypartofthisthesishaspreviouslybeensubmittedforadegree oranyotherqualificationsatthisuniversityoranyotherinstitution,this hasbeenclearlystated. Where I have consulted the published work of others, this is always clearlyattributed. Where I have quoted from the work of others, the source is always given.withtheexceptionofsuchquotations,this thesisisentirelymy ownwork. I have acknowledged all sources used for the purpose of this work.i havenotcommissionedthiswork,whetherinwholeorinpart,toathird partyandthatthisworkismyown. IhavereadtheUniversityofMalta sguidelinesonplagiarism. Signed: Date:15 th May,2015 2
To#the#burdened#families#2#of#drug#users#who#turned#into## abusers,#some#of#whom#became#traffickers# ## who#still#offer#their#support## notwithstanding#daily#promises## that#all#this#will#end # tomorrow.# 3
TABLEOFCONTENTS DeclarationofAuthorship...1 TABLEOFCONTENTS...4 TABLEOFLEGISLATION...11 TABLEOFJUDGMENTS...12 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...17 ABBREVIATIONS...18 ABSTRACT...19 INTRODUCTION...20 Pro1activePolicing...21 AimandMethodology...21 DivisionofChapters...22 Fairness...27 Chapter1:CONTROLLEDDELIVERYASASPECIALINVESTIGTIVE TECHNIQUE...29 1.1.Introduction...29 1.1.1. NecessityIstheMotherofInvention...29 1.2.DescriptionoftheControlledDeliveryProcedure...29 1.3.ControlledDeliveryProcedure...31 1.3.1.WhenNoSuspectIsIdentified...31 1.3.1.1.Repubblikata MaltavsSimonXuereb...31 1.3.2.WhenHavingASuspectInMind...33 4
1.3.2.1.Repubblikata MaltavsHenryGroganet...33 1.4.AControlledDealingFollowingPredispositionoftheSuspect...34 1.4.1.Pulizija(SpetturDennisTheuma)vsRosarioBrincat...34 1.4.3.RequirementofConsentFromtheMagistrate...35 1.4.3.1.Repubblikata MaltavsAndre Falzon...35 1.5.IstheAuthorizationFromtheMagistrateAMereFormality?...36 1.5.1.NoAuthorizationForControlledDeliveryWasObtained,YetItWasStill ConsideredAsBeingOne...37 1.5.1.1.PulizijaSpetturNeilHarrisonvsRonaldPsaila...37 1.6.UndercoverAgentsvsAgent'Provocateur...39 1.6.1.RoleOfAnUndercoverAgent...39 1.6.1.1.UndercoverPoliceOfficers_HowFarCanTheyGo?...40 1.6.2.AgentProvocateur...41 1.6.2.1.IsAnAgent#Provocateur#AllowedToBeUsedInAControlledDeliveryIn Malta?...41 1.6.2.2.ThePositionInMaltaOnAgents#Provocateurs...42 1.6.2.3.TemptedorForced?...42 1.6.3.ThePositionOnAgents#Provocateurs#InOtherJurisdictions...43 1.6.3.1.UnitedKingdom...43 1.6.3.2.Italy...43 1.6.3.3.Conclusion...44 1.7.WhenDoesAControlledDeliveryFails...44 1.8.Conclusion...45 Chapter2:WHATLEADSTOENTRAPMENTINCONTROLLED OPERATIONS?WHATSHOULDANALLEGATIONOFENTRAPMENTLEAD TO?ISITADEFENCE?...47 2.1.Introduction...47 2.2.Definition...47 5
2.3.Investigationisnotentrapment...48 2.4. Causing Crime...48 2.5.ThePleaOfEntrapment...49 2.6.EntrapmentAsADefenceMechanism...49 2.6.1.TheAmericanPosition...50 2.6.1.1.TheSubjectiveApproach...50 2.6.1.1.1.Predisposition...50 2.6.1.1.2.ADefendantFocusedApproach...52 2.6.1.2.TheObjectiveApproach...52 2.6.1.3.MajorityViewPrevails...53 2.7.ThePositionInCanada...54 2.8.ThePositionInTheUK...55 2.8.1.ImproperlyObtainedEvidence...55 2.8.1.1.Article6ECHRontheadmissibilityofevidence...56 2.8.2.TwoApproachesasaremedyforentrapmentunderEnglishandCommon Law...57 2.8.2.1.Stayingproceedings...58 2.8.2.1.1.WhyisaStayofproceedingspreferred?...58 2.8.2.1.2.Thedisadvantagesofastay...59 2.8.2.2.ExclusionofEvidenceUnderSection78ofPACE...59 2.9.Non1RecognitionOfDefenceOfEntrapmentInTheUK...60 2.10.TheleadingcaseonentrapmentintheUK:RvsLooselyandAttorney1 General sreferenceno3of2000...61 2.10.1.TheExtentOfPoliceParticipation...63 2.10.2.Persistenceorordinarytemptations?...64 2.10.3. Unwary#Innocent vs Unwary#Criminal #and#shiftingopportunity...65 2.11.Malteseposition...66 2.12.ExerciseOfDiscretionInSentencing...67 6
2.12.1.Pulizija(SpetturJohnMifsud)vsEmmanuelVellaet...68 2.13.CriminalResponsibility...69 2.14.Conclusion...69 Chapter3:THERIGHTTOAFAIRTRIALUNDERARTICLE6OFTHEECHR WITHSPRECIALREFERENCETOTHEGENERALPRINCIPLESESTABLISHED BYTHEEUROPEANCOURTOFHUMANRIGHTSONENTRAPMENTANDITS MAINJUDGMENTS...72 3.1.TheCriminalLimbOfTheRightToAFairTrial...72 3.2.PresumptionOfInnocence Article6 2...73 3.2.1ThePrivilegeAgainstSelf_Incrimination...73 3.3.MinimumGuarantees...74 3.3.1.TheRightToHaveAdequateTimeAndFacilities_Article6 3(b)...74 3.3.1.1.ThePrincipleOfEqualityOfArms...74 3.3.1.2ThePrincipleOfAdversarialProceedings...75 3.3.2.TheRightToDefendOneselfAndToHaveTheAssistanceOfCounsel Article6 3(c)AndTheRightToCross_ExamineProsecutionWitnesses Article 6 3(d)...75 3.3.2.1.AbsentAndAnonymousWitnesses Confrontation...76 3.4.ConclusionOnMinimumGuarantees...77 3.5.AdditionalSafeguards...77 3.5.1.TheGivingOfReasons...77 3.5.2.HaveAConvictionAndSentenceReviewedByAHigherCourt...78 3.6.TheUseOfSpecialInvestigativeTechniques...78 3.7.HowAndWhenIsAHumanRightsApplicationDeemedToBeAdmissible ToBeHeardBeforeTheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights?...78 3.8.TheMainJudgmentsWhichAreCitedInLaterJudgments...80 3.8.1.%Lüdi%vs%Switzerland...81 7
3.8.2.TeixeiradeCastrovsPortugal...83 Chapter4:GENERALPRINCIPLESESTABLISHEDBYTHEEUROPEAN COURTOFHUMANRIGHTSWITHREGARDSTOTHEAPPLICABILITYOF ARTICLE6TOPRE1TRIALPROCEEDINGSASFOLLOWEDBYLOCALAND STRASBOURGCASE1LAW...87 4.1.Article6Implications...87 4.2.GeneralPrinciplesEstablishedByTheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights...88 4.2.1.DidTheAgentHaveAn Essentially#Passive #Behavior?...88 4.2.2.WasThereAnyCompulsion,Pressure,Coercion,InstigationOrIncitement?...89 4.2.3.DidTheAgents Join TheCriminalActivityOrDidThey Create It?...90 4.2.4.TheMannerInWhichTheOperationWasCarriedOut...90 4.2.5.TheRightsOfTheDefence...91 4.3.JudicialReviewOfThePleaOfEntrapment...91 4.4.IsTheGeneralRightSafeguardedUnderArticle6ApplicableToPre1Trial Proceedings?...93 4.4.1.AlanMuscatvsAvukatĠenerali...93 4.4.1.1.ConclusionsOfTheCourt...95 4.4.1.2.CommentaryOnTheJudgmentOfAlanMuscatvsAG...96 4.4.2.HenryGroganuLukeMuscatvsAvukatĠenerali...98 4.5.WhendoesArticle6starttoapply?...99 4.5.1.Uponinvestigation?...99 4.5.2.AtTheEndOfTheCriminalAction?...100 4.5.2.1.From Charge To Determination...100 4.5.3.Conclusion...102 4.6.HumanRights ProceduralImplications...102 4.7.AnalogicalReferenceToTheRightOfLegalAssistance?...103 8
Chapter5:ANANALYSISOFTHEGENERALPRINCIPLESESTABLISHEDIN THEEUROPEANCOURTOFHUMANRIGHTSCASE1LAWWHEN DETERMININGVIOLATIONOROTHERWISEOFARTICLE6OFTHE CONVENTIONONCEANENTRAPMENTPLEAISRAISED...105 5.1.ProcedureFollowedByTheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsUpon RaisingAnAllegationOfBreachOfArticle6DueToEntrapment...105 5.2.AClassicCaseWhenIncitementLeadsToABreachOfTheRights GuaranteedUnderArticle6ECHR...107 5.2.1.FurchtvGermany...108 5.3.AnonymousWitnessesAndNon1DisclosureOfEvidenceThatMay CompromiseTheRightToAFairTrial...108 5.3.1.EdwardsandLewisvstheUnitedKingdom...109 5.4.UnfairConvictionDueToInducement,Non1DisclosureAndLackOf ReasonableSuspicion...111 5.4.1.MalininasvsLithuania...111 5.4.1.1.DissentingOpinion...113 5.5.ViolationOfArticle6WhenTheDomesticCourtsDoNotScrutinizeThe PleaOfEntrapmentWhenRaisedByTheAccused...114 5.5.1.KhudobinVsRussia...114 5.5.2.VeselovandOthersvsRussia...115 5.5.3.LagutinandOthersvsRussia...117 5.5.3.1.ConcurringOpinion...120 5.6.WhereNoEntrapmentOccurredBecauseTheUndercoverAgentMerely JoinedInAnOn1GoingActivity...121 5.6.1.SequeiravsPortugal...121 5.7.NoViolationOfTheRightToAFairTrialBecauseThePleaOfEntrapment WasProperlyAssessedByTheDomesticCourts...122 9
5.7.1.BannikovavsRussia...122 5.8.Conclusion...123 CONCLUSION...125 AFewFinalConsiderations...125 EthicalBehaviour...126 TheRisksArisingFromTheUseOfInformants...126 Entrapment...128 RightToSilenceAndThePrivilegeNotToIncriminateOneself...129 EffectiveRemedy?...130 FollowingTheRuleOfLaw...131 ClosingRemarks...133 BIBLIOGRAPHY...134 10
TABLEOFLEGISLATION MalteseLegislation CriminalCode,Cap.9oftheLawsofMalta DangerousDrugsOrdinance,Cap.101oftheLawsofMalta EuropeanConventionAct,Cap.319oftheLawsofMalta MedicalKindredandProfessionsOrdinance,Cap.31oftheLawsof Malta CouncilofEurope EuropeanConventiononHumanRights UKLegislation PoliceandCriminalEvidenceActof1984 RussianLaw OperationalSearchActivitiesActof5July1995 OtherInternationalInstruments CommitteeofMinisters RecommendationRec(2005)10 GlobalCommissiononDrugPolicy2011 11
TABLEOFJUDGMENTS MalteseJudgments Adrian# Busietta# vs# Avukat# Ġenerali, Constitutional Court, 13 th March 2006,29/2003/1 Alan# Muscat# vs# Avukat# Ġenerali, First Hall of the Civil Court (ConstitutionalJurisdiction),18 th October2013,45/2013 Charles# Steven# Muscat# vs# Avukat# Ġenerali, First Hall of the Civil Court (ConstitutionalJurisdiction),10 th October2011,75/2010 Darren#Aquilina#vs#Onorevoli#Prim#Ministru#et,ConstitutionalCourt,31 st May2013,72/2011/1 David# sive# David# Norbert# Schembri# vs# Avukat# Ġenerali, Constitutional Court,25 th March2011,48/2008/1 Emmanuel#sive#Leli#Camilleri#vs#il2Kummissarju#tal2Pulizija,Constitutional Court,20 th December2000 Henry# Grogan# u# Luke# Muscat# vs# Avukat# Ġenerali,# First Hall of the Civil Court(ConstitutionalJurisdiction),80/2012(pending)# Morgan# Ehi# Egbomon# vs# Avukat# Ġenerali, Constitutional Court, 16 th March2011,21/2009/1 Pulizija#(Spettur#Victor#Aquilina)#vs#Alvin#Privitera,ConstitutionalCourt, 11 th April2011,20/2009/1 Pulizija# vs# Emmanuel# Vella# et, Court of Criminal Appeal, 29 th January 1987 Pulizija#vs#Grazju#Spiteri,CourtofMagistrates,8 th March1984, Pulizija# vs# Dr.# Melvyn# Mifsud, Constitutional Court, 26 th April 2013, 17/2011/1 Pulizija#(Spettur#Neil#Harrison)#vs#Ronald#Psaila,CourtofCriminalAppeal (InferiorJurisdiction),8 th January2002,187/2001 Pulizija# (Spettur# Dennis# Theuma)# vs# Rosario# Brincat, Court of Magistrates,22 nd March2014,22/2003 Repubbika#ta #Malta#vs#Andre #Falzon,CriminalCourt,10 th October2012, 13/2009 12
Repubblika# ta # Malta# vs# Carmel# Camilleri, Constitutional Court, 22 nd February2013,31/2011/1 Repubblika#ta #Malta#vs#Eugenio#sive#Genio#Gaffarena,19 th January1996, CourtofCriminalAppeal(notreported) Repubblika#ta #Malta#vs#Gregory#Robert#Eyre#et, Constitutional Court 1 st April2005,14/2004/1 Repubblika ta Malta vs Henry Grogan et, Criminal Court, 7/2012 (pending) Repubblika# ta # Malta# vs# Matthew# John# Migneco, First Hall of the Civil Court(ConstitutionalJurisdiction),15 th November2011,42/2011 Repubblika#ta #Malta#vs#Simon#Xuereb,CriminalCourt,5 th January2004, 15/2003 Ronald# Agius# vs# Avukat# Ġenerali, Constitutional Court,30 th November 2001,18/2001/1 Sandro# Chetcuti# et# vs# Avukat# Ġenerali, First Hall of the Civil Court (ConstitutionalJurisdiction),28 th January2005,8/2003/1 Vella#vs#Bannister,#ConstitutionalCourt,7 th March1994# Victor# Lanzon# vs# Kummissarju# tal2pulizija, Constitutional Court, 29 th November2014 EuropeanCourtofHumanRightsJudgments Aleksander#Zaichenko#vs#Russia,#no.39660/02# Aleksay#Vladimirovich#Ivanstov#vs#Russia(dec),no.10192/09 Asch#vs#Austria,26Apr1991,SeriesAno.203,(1993)15EHRR597 Bannikova#vs#Russia,no.18757/06,ECHR2011_II Birutis# and# Others# vs# Lithuania, nos 47698/99 and 48115/99, 28 Mar 2002 Burak#Hun#vs#Turkey,#no.17570/04,ECHR2010_I# Calabro#vs#Italy,(dec)no.59895/00 Constantin#and#Stoian#vs#Romania,#nos. 23782/06 and 46629/06, ECHR 2010_I# DelcourtvsBelgium,SeriesAno.11,p.15 ECHR1970_I 13
Edwards# and# Lewis# vs# the# United# Kingdom, (GC), nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98,ECHR2004_X Escoubet#vs#Belgium,no.26780/95,(1999) Foti#and#Others#vs#Italy,#nos.7604/76,7719/76,7781/77and7913/77# Furcht#vs#Germany,no.54648/09,ECHR2014_X Imbrioscia#vs#Switzerland,#no.13972/88# Jasper#vs#the#United#Kingdom,no.27052/05,ECHR2000_II Khan#vs#the#United#Kingdomno.35394/97 Khudobin#vs#Russia,#no.59696/00,ECHR2007_I# LüdivsSwitzerland,no.12433/86,ECHR1992_VI Malininas#vs#Lithuania,no.10071/04,ECHR2008_X Pareniuc#vs#the#Republic#of#Moldova,#no.17953/08,ECHR2014_X# Pisano#vs#Italy,no.36732/97,27July2000(2000)34EHRR27 Ramanauskas#vs#Lithuania(GC)no.77420/01 Salduz#vs#Turkey(GC),no.36391/02,ECHR2008_XI Shannon#vs#the#United#Kingdom,#(dec)no.67537/01# Teixeira#de#Castro#vs#Portugal,no:44/1997/828/1034,ECHR1998_VI Van#Mechelen#and#Others#vs#the#Netherlands, 23 April, Reports 1997_III, 691,(1998)25EHRR647 Vanyan#vs#Russia,no.53203/99,ECHR2006/11 Veselov# and# Others# vs# Russia,# nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, ECHR2013_I# UKJudgments AG s#reference#(no.3#of#2000),#(2001)ukhl53# Nottingham#City#Council#vs#Amin(2000)1Cr.App.R.426,DC R#vs#Hardwicke#and#Thwaites(2001)Crim.L.R.218 R#vs#Harwood,(1989)Crim.LR.285 R#v#Latif[1996]1WLR104 R#v#Loosely[2001]1WLR2060 R#vs#Mealey#and#Sheridan60Cr.App.R.59,CA R#vs#Sang,69Cr.App.L.282(1979)2AllE.R.1222,HL. 14
R#vs#Shahzad,(1996)1AllE.R.353 R#vs#Smurthwaite#and#Gill,(1994)1ALLER898 R#vs#Underhill(1979)1Cr.AppR(S)270 USJudgments Hampton#vs#US,425U.S.484(1976) People#vs#Toler(1962) Sherman#vs#the#US,287U.S.435,53S.Ct.210,77L.ED.413(1932) Sorrells#vs#the#US,356U.S.369,78,S.Ct.819,2L.ED.848(1958) US#vs#Healy,D.C.Mont,202349 US#vs#Russell,411U.S.423(1973) Woo#Wai#vs#United#States,223F.412,412_13(9thCir.1915) ItalianJudgments Re#Arena#ed#altro,CortediCassazzioneSezzioneI,17 th December1970, number3014 Re#Herman,CortediCassazzione,14 th November1974 AustralianJudgment Ridgeway#vs#the#Queen,(1995)184CLR19 CanadianJudgments R#vs#Mack,(1988)2S.C.R.903,10,122(Can.) R#vs#Amato,(1982)2S.C.R.418 NewZealandJudgments Police#vs#Lavalle(1979)1NZLR45 ScottishJudgments Brown#vs#HM#Advocate(2002)SLT809 Cook#vs#Skinner,MacDonald#vs#Skinner(1977)JC9 Doyle#vs#HM#Advocate(2009)HCJAC86,2010GWD 15
Marsh#vs#Johnston,(1959)SLT(Notes)28 Weir#vs#Jessop(1991)JC146 16
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Iwouldliketoexpressmyappreciationtomyco_supervisorDr.JosephGiglio for helping me acquire a better understanding of the Maltese situation with regardstothemainthemeofthisthesis. Mygratitudegoestomyparentsandmysiblingsfortheirunfailingconfidence in my abilities and unceasing encouragement throughouttheduration of this course. Great appreciation goes especially to my mother who put up with me during stressful times and to my father who although not always appreciated triedtomakemylifemorecomfortableduringthepastsixyears;forthatiam foreverindebted. AheartfeltthanksgoestoDr.LudvicCaruanatowhomIwillalwaysbegrateful forgivingmetheopportunitytogainaninsightintowhatthelegalprofession reallyentails.hiscontinuouspatience,trustandoptimismwereinvaluable. FinallyIwishtothankDr.TonioAzzopardiwhothroughhislecturesinstilled my love for human rights law. His help, support and assistance inthe initial proposalofthisthesiswereindispensable. 17
ABBREVIATIONS AG AttorneyGeneral ECHR EuropeanConventiononHumanRights ECtHR EuropeanCourtofHumanRights EU EuropeanUnion PACE PoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct UK UnitedKingdom US UnitedStated 18
ABSTRACT The aim of this thesis is to explore the controlled delivery as a special investigative technique and define entrapment vis_à_vis the fight against drug traffickinginordertoshowthatnotwithstandingthattheformermayleadto the latter they are two distinct concepts. The procedure followed by the Executive Police and the role they play in such an investigation is one of the main themes. It demonstrates when an illegitimate use of this technique can possibly lead to entrapment whereby individuals feel that they have been incited, instigated or pressured to commit an offence with a further consequenceofhavingtheirrighttoafairtrialasguaranteedunderarticle6of theeuropeanconventiononhumanrightsviolated.italsogivesanoverview of the case_law particularly from Malta, from the European Court of Human Rights,fromtheHouseofLordsandfromtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtto show how they all deal differently with the issue of entrapment. Some jurisdictions elevate it to a defence and in others it may lead either to the exclusionofallevidencegatheredthroughtheillegitimatecontrolleddelivery, to a stay of proceedings due to abuse of process or to a mere mitigation in sentence.theothermainthemeofthisthesisrelatestothegeneralprinciples established by the Court in Strasbourg which should be followed by the memberstateswhencarryingoutacontrolleddeliveryandhowtodealwitha pleaonentrapmentwhenraisedbytheaccused.specialemphasisismadeon the fact that it is neither the controlled delivery nor the resulting entrapment whichleadstoabreach,butratheritistheywaynationalcourtsdealwitha complaintthatputstheminthewrong. Keywords: agent' provocateur; Article 6 ECHR; incitement; plea of entrapment;undercoveragent 19
INTRODUCTION Over the years organised crime has become more sophisticated. It is highly likely that drug traffickers are aware of police movements, thus making investigations more difficult. With no victim or witness willing to report the mattertothepoliceitisveryhardtotracesuchcrimes. 1 Inordertobeableto gatherevidence,theinvestigativeauthoritiesareoftenrequiredtousespecial investigative techniques including controlled deliveries and undercover operations whereby they will be able to gain access to the illegitimate endeavoursofthoseinvolvedincriminalactivities. Theseoperationsprovideforaveryeffectivewayofgatheringevidenceforthe purpose of detecting and investigating very well_organised or latent crimes. 2 Their use is unavoidably induced by today s reality in combating organized crime in the spheres such as drug trafficking. 3 As similar operations became more prevalent, so did defendants claiming that the authorities tricked them intocommittingacrime. 4 When a controlled delivery is not lawfully carried out, various rights may be breached.forinstanceinsettinguptheenvironmentforacontrolleddelivery, Article8maybeviolatedthroughunauthorizedtelephonerecordings.However thisthesiswillonlydelveintothegeneralrighttoafairtrialasguaranteedby Article6oftheConvention. 1Brad,Cristina(21stApril2013)Abuseofprocessinthepre_trialstage_Entrapment,Available at:http://lawyr.it/index.php/articles/international_focus/item/9_abuse_of_process_in_the_pre_ trial_stage_entrapment(accessed:22ndnovember2014). 2LijanaStariene, Thelimitsoftheuseofundercoveragentsandtherighttoafairtrialunder Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, University of Wroclaw, Jurisprudencija,2009,3(117):pp.263_284 3.ibid# 4Woo#Wai#vs#United#States, 223 F. 412, 412_13(9thCir.1915)(firstfederalcaserecognising entrapmentdefence) 20
Pro1activePolicing Pro_activepolicingreferstowhatisknownasundercoverpolicingwherepolice officersposeasbuyersofdrugs.theuseofthisformofpolicingtogetherwith its resulting evidence are repeatedly challenged in courts because it involves deception. It also includes the infiltration into potential criminal conspiracies which is more problematic than an undercover operation. 5 Sometimes police aretippedoffaboutspecificexecutorsofcrimeoraboutanupcomingcriminal actsothattheywillbeawaitingforthesuspect smovesinordertoapprehend them.occasionally,policecrossthelineandinsteadofundercoveragentsthey actasagents#provocateurswherebytheyencourage#theoffence. Adistinctionmustbemadebetweenfacilitationandinducementofanoffence. The courts must protect against the state# actually# creating# a# crime# for# the# purposes# of# prosecution. 6 In an age where covert investigation has become routine, the safeguards for individuals need to be increased to ensure that individuallibertiesareprotected. 7 Whoeveriscarryingoutacriminaloffence shouldstillbeprotectedfromarbitraryintrusionbytheexecutivepolice. AimandMethodology Theaimofthisthesisistoestablishwhenandhowacontrolledoperationcan be carried out legitimately, particularly following principles coming from judgmentsoftheecthrinordertoavoidaviolationoftherighttoafairtrial from being committed. It also makes a thorough distinction between a controlled delivery and a potential resulting entrapment. It also analyses differentschoolsofthoughttotrytodeterminewhetherthesafeguardsofthe generalrighttoafairtrialappliestopre_trialproceedings.itspurposeisalsoto establish when is an accused deemed to have been incited or instigated to commitanoffence.anothertargetistoestablishwhenentrapmentcanactually 5Sanders,A.&Young,R. Criminal,3 rd edition,oxforduniversitypress,2007,newyork.pg291 6 Chernok, A.V. (2011) 'Entrapment# under# controlled# operations# legislation:# A# Victorian# perspective',criminallawjournal,#35,pp.361_375. 7.ibid 21
leadtoaviolationoftherighttoafairtrialassecuredbyarticle6oftheechr. Intermsofmethodology,theessentialsourcesarelocaljudgmentswhichserve thepurposeofdefiningcontrolleddeliveriesaswellascase_lawoftheecthr, boththoseinwhichtherighttoafairtrialhasbeenviolatedandthosewhich serveasexamplesofgoodpractice. DivisionofChapters Chapter 1 highlights the procedure to be followed to carry out a controlled delivery in accordance with the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance 8. Local case_law showstheroletakenbythepoliceofficersasthedeliveryunfoldsandhowitis actuallycarriedout.itprovidesforapreview of the technique as from the moment police come to know about the drug trafficking until the suspect person is arrested. Through this chapter various judgments are analysed, all dealingwithadifferentaspectoftheprocedure.specificreferenceismadeto the authorisation procedure to ascertain whether it is a mere formality or otherwise. Adequate legal framework should be in place to set the limits on when such methods of investigation can be resorted to. Different states have different methodsofauthorisingacontrolleddelivery,themostcommonbeingajudicial authorisationasitisinthecaseofmaltawherebytheagorthedutymagistrate willgivethegoahead.inbulgariaitisthecourtwhichgivesapprovalandin PolandandtheLiechteinsteintheregionalcourtwillconsenttoitprovidedthat there is a prior agreement with the Prosecutor General. In Croatia, Turkey, SloveniaandEstoniaauthorisationisgrantedbytheinvestigatingjudgeandin Greecebytheindictmentschamber. Thesamechapteralsoprovidesforadistinctionbetweenanundercoveragent and an agent# provocateur and between being tempted and being forced. It briefly explains their roles and whether they are accepted in different jurisdictions.whenundercoveragentsareusedtoinfiltratethe circle of drug 8Chapter101oftheLawsofMalta 22
traffickersinordertogatherevidence,theymustknowtheirlimits.theymust notbecomeagents#provocateurs#suchthattheymustnotinstigate,encourageor pressurethosewhomtheyareinvestigatingintocommittingtheoffence.they mustseektogathersufficientevidence. If an undercover agent acts as a passive observer, there is no impermissible policeconduct. 9 Howeverthereisnodefinitionofwhatfallstobeconsidered asunacceptableorimpermissiblepolicebehavior.inrealityitisverydifficult for an undercover agent to play a minor role and not actively engage in the planningandcommittingofthecrime. Whenacontrolleddeliverytakesplaceitshouldmeanthatthedrugtrafficking hasalreadybeenplannedanditshouldnotbetheundercoveragentwhobrings about the commission of the crime through encouragement or incitement. If that happens, his role changes into that of an agent# provocateur# whereby his actionsmightactuallyleadthesuspectinbecomingentrappedintocarryingout thedrugsale. The following chapter deals with the notion of entrapment. The ECtHR uses entrapment, police incitement and police provocation interchangeably. Their meaningisdeemedtobeequivalenttothe instigation#of#crime#in#the#context#of# an# official# investigation. 10 #It provides a thorough analysis of how different jurisdictions deal with the plea of entrapment when raised by an accused duringhistrialbeforethedomesticcourts. In the US, entrapment serves as a defence following an approach where predisposition is a determining factor. It makes a non_exhaustive list of instances whereby certain behaviour shows that a person had criminal 9Jerrard, R. (2001) 'Entrapment:# abuse# of# legal# process# for# police# to# incite# crime', The Times, 29thOctober 10Vitkauskas,D.,andDikov,G.(Strasbourg2012)Protectingtherighttoafairtrialunderthe EuropeanConventiononHumanRights.CouncilofEuropeHumanRightsHandbook[Online]. Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/hr_ natimplement/source/documentation/hb12_fairtrial_en.pdf (Accessed: 25th January 2015). Pp.58 23
intentions to carry out the drug_trafficking irrespective of any police encouragement.ontheotherhand,thecommonlawsystemintheuk,provides fortworemedieswhenthepleaofentrapmentisraised;ithasthediscretionto stayproceedingsoritcanexcludeevidencefollowingsection78ofpace.the Maltesecourtsdoactuallyfavouramitigationinsentencewhentheyconsider policebehaviourasbeinginappropriate,buttheydonotprovideforadefence. Chapter 2 also provides for a thorough examination of the extent of police participation in undercover operations and allows for a comparison with the ordinary temptations all individuals are faced with. Temptation and persistencearetwodifferentconceptsandalthoughthelattermightsometimes lead to entrapment it is not a general rule. An individual who was already predisposedshouldbetreateddifferentlyfromsomeonewhowasnot. The third chapter puts forward a thorough evaluation of the criminal limb of therighttoafairtrialaswellastheminimumguaranteeswhicheveryperson accusedisentitledto.article6containsbothageneralrighttoafairtrialanda numberofspecificrightsincludingtherighttoacertainminimumstandardsof proceduralfairness.althoughthelatterarementionedinthepreviouschapter, thisthesisfocusesmainlyonthegeneralright. Shouldthefairtrialbeignored,throughthebeliefthatthepublicatlargewould benefit by having one less drug trafficker in the streets? This question is answered in the negative following an analysis of the judgment of Teixeira#de# Castro# vs# Portugal 11 #which is one of the main focuses in this chapter. This principle is reiterated ad# nauseam# in all following judgments on the same subject matter. Lüdi# vs# Switzerland 12 is another judgment of the Strasbourg Court which has set out general principles which are continuously quoted in laterjudgments. This chapter also gives an evaluation of how and when a human rights application is allowed to be heard before the ECtHR. It states against what 11no:44/1997/828/1034,ECHR1998_VI 12no:12433/86,ECHR1992_VI 24
violations can the complaint be addressed and also analyses what the same Court should discern, discover, establish and confirm before determining whetheranapplicationisevenadmissibletobeheardbeforeit. The Convention does not forbid the use of special investigative techniques as long as the human rights and freedoms as set out in the Convention and reinforcedbythecase_lawoftheecthrarerespected.whenusingcontrolled operations and undercover techniques, adequate and sufficient legal and internal safeguards against abuse should be in place. 13 The# public# interest# cannot#justify#the#use#of#evidence#obtained#as#a#result#of#police#incitement,#as#this# would#expose#the#accused#to#the#risk#of#being#definitely#deprived#of#fair#trail#from# the# outset. 14 Thus, the public interest does not validate the use of evidence gatheredfollowingprovocationorinstigation. Therequisiteoftheproperadministrationofjustice,whichisinferredfromthe righttoafairtrial,appliestoallcriminaloffences,notwithstandingthefactthat thestateisrequiredtotakesuitablemeasurestolimitorganizedcrimes. The# right# to# the# fair# administration# of# justice# holds# so# prominent# a# place# in# a# democratic#society#that#it#cannot#be#sacrificed#for#the#sake#of#expedience. 15 # Reviewed in the forth chapter are the general principles established by the ECtHRinrelationtoArticle6suggestingsafeguardstoprotectthehumanrights of those accused with drug trafficking. These include the way in which a controlled operation is to be carried out and to establish whether the undercoveragenthadcarriedouttheinvestigationsinan essentially#passive # manner. It also provides a non_exhaustive list of what sort of behavior can actually be equivalent to incitement, compulsion or pressure which would eventuallyleadtheaccusedtopleadentrapment.additionally,chapter4makes abriefexaminationofhowapleaofentrapmentistobeproperlyreviewedin ordertobeinlinewiththerighttoafairtrial. 13Ramanauskas# vs# Lithuania (GC) no. 77420/01; National Anti_Corruption Directorate of Romania(20_22October2010)Effectivemeansofinvestigationandprosecutionofcorruption, Bucharest,Romania:OECDpg8 14Ramanauskas#vs#Lithuania 54 15Ramanauskas#vs#Lithuania 51 25
The main difference of the requirement of fairness from all the other elementsofarticle6isthatitcoversproceedingsasawhole,andthequestion whether a person has had a fair trial is looked at by way of cumulative analysis of all the stages, not merely of a particular incident or an isolated procedural defect; as a result, defects at one level may be put right at a later stage. 16 However,itisimportantthatinordertoassessthefairnessofatrial,ithasto bedeterminedwhetherthepre_trialstageinvestigationswereconductedwith respecttotheruleoflaw. 17 AthoroughanalysisofthelocalandECtHRcase_ law is carried out to put forward the two opposing schools of thought as to whethertherighttoafairtrialshouldbeapplicabletopre_trialproceedingsor not.specialreferenceismadetothecontroversywhicharoseinthejudgment ofalan#muscat#vs#ag 18 #andtheongoingoneofhenry#grogan#u#luke#muscat#vs# AG 19. Thischapterendswithananalogytotherightoflegalassistanceatthepre_trial stagesinceinrecentyearsthecourthasstartedattachinggreaterimportance to certain crucial moments in the proceedings, in particular to the first questioningofasuspectincriminalproceedings. 20 Itstatedthat Article#6#may# be#relevant#before#a#case#is#sent#for#trial#if#and#so#far#as#the#fairness#of#the#trial#is# likely# to# be# seriously# prejudiced# by# an# initial# failure# to# comply# with# its# provisions. 21 # 16Vitkauskas,D.,andDikov,G.(Strasbourg2012)Protectingtherighttoafairtrialunderthe EuropeanConventiononHumanRights.CouncilofEuropeHumanRightsHandbook[Online]. Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/hr_ natimplement/source/documentation/hb12_fairtrial_en.pdf (Accessed: 25th January 2015). Pp.58 17Brad, Cristina (21st April 2013) Abuse of process in the pre_trial stage _ Entrapment, Available at: http://lawyr.it/index.php/articles/international_focus/item/9_abuse_of_process_ in_the_pre_trial_stage_entrapment(accessed:22ndnovember2014). 18FirstHalloftheCivilCourt(ConstitutionalJurisdiction),18 th October2013,45/2013 19FirstHalloftheCivilCourt(ConstitutionalJurisdiction),80/2012(pending) 20Salduz#v.#Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008_XI, 56_62; Vitkauskas, D., and Dikov, G. (Strasbourg2012)ProtectingtherighttoafairtrialundertheEuropeanConventiononHuman Rights. Council of Europe Human Rights Handbook [Online]. Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/hr_natimplement/source/documentation/hb12_fairtrial_en.pdf (Accessed:25thJanuary2015).Pp.58 21Salduz#v.#Turkey, 50 26
The final chapter mainly deals with the case_law of the ECtHR. By looking at how the operation was carried out and the overall behavior of all those involvedonewillbeabletoseehowthesamecourtwillascertainwhetherthe applicant was subject to any pressure or instigation to carry out drug trafficking. 22 Acontrolleddeliverywillnotautomaticallyentailabreachofthe righttoafairtrial;whenitisnotproperlycarriedoutitmaythenactuallylead to entrapment. However, if the plea of entrapment is duly assessed by the nationalcourts,eventhoughtheremighthavebeenentrapment,nobreachof Article 6 occurs. This is due to the fact that not every entrapment necessarily violatestherightsguaranteedunderarticle6oftheconvention.case_lawdealt withinthischapterestablishedthebestpossiblewayforthedomesticcourtsto avoidbreachingtherighttoafairtrialofthoseaccused. There is no definition of fairness and although there is no exhaustive list establishing what instances renders a trial unfair, the case_law of the ECtHR provide guidelines both to the police as well as to the domestic courts. They shouldbelookedatwithcautiontoavoidhumiliatingthenationalsystemtime and time again before the ECtHR. If the latter s judgments are looked at as a lighthouse,wherebytheywillbeconsideredasaguidingcreature, applicants would not have to resort to the Court in Strasbourg because they would be obtainingasimilarredressfromthecourtsoftheirhomecountry.thiswould betheidealscenariobothasawayofdiminishingsimilarfactcasesintobeing dealtwithbytheecthrandalsoasawayofhavingthoseaccusednothavingto resort to the most superior court when the latter had already established its viewonasimilaroccasion. Fairness Judge Loucaides in his partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion in the judgment of Khan#vs#the#United#Kingdom 23 held that the#term# fairness,#when# examined#in#the#context#of#the#echr#implies#observance#of#the#rule#of#law#and#for# 22R#vs#Hardwicke#and#Thwaites(2001)Crim.L.R.218 23no.35394/97,ECHR2000_X 27
that#matter#it#presupposes#respect#of#the#human#rights#set#out#in#the#convention. # 24 # Fairness puts a clear positive obligation on the national courts to assess whetherapersonwasincitedtocommitacriminalact. 25 Althoughentrapment can constitute a breach of the requirement of fairness under Article 6, a convictionbyentrapmentisnotnecessarilyawrongfulone. 26 I# cannot# accept# that# a# trial# can# be# fair,# as# required# by# Article# 6,# if# a# person s# guilt# for# an# offence# is# established# through# evidence# obtained# in# breach# of# the# human# rights# guaranteed# by# the# convention I# do# not# think# one# can# speak# of# a# fair# trial# if# it# is# conducted# in# breach# of# the# law Breaking# the# law,# in# order# to# enforce#it,#is#a#contradiction#in#terms#and#an#absurd#proposition. 27 Furthermore,malpracticebylawenforcementagenciesaswellasunfairtrials undermine public confidence in the legitimacy of the criminal justice system andbringitintodisrepute. 28 24.ibid 25LijanaStariene, Thelimitsoftheuseofundercoveragentsandtherighttoafairtrialunder Article6(1)oftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights,pp.263_284 26Vitkauskas,D.,andDikov,G.(Strasbourg2012)Protectingtherighttoafairtrialunderthe EuropeanConventiononHumanRights.CouncilofEuropeHumanRightsHandbook[Online]. Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/hr_ natimplement/source/documentation/hb12_fairtrial_en.pdf (Accessed: 25th January 2015). Pp.58 27DissentingOpinionofJudgeLoucaidesinKhan#vs#the#United#Kingdom,no.35394/97 28 R#vs#Hardwicke#and#Thwaites(2001)Crim.L.R.218;Chernock,A.V.(2011) Entrapmentunder controlledoperationslegislation:avictorianperspective,pp.361_375 28
Chapter1:CONTROLLEDDELIVERYASASPECIAL INVESTIGTIVETECHNIQUE Decoys# are# permissible# to# entrap# criminals# but# not#to#create#them. # 29 ' ' 1.1.Introduction 1.1.1.NecessityIstheMotherofInvention Controlled delivery is predominantly used to uncover drug trafficking; a victimlesscrimewhichalthoughdoesnotoperateagainstaparticularvictimit operates against the public at large. The Executive Police resort to such methods of detection because such offences take place willingly and clandestinely and thus leave very little or no evidence at all. In most cases a controlled delivery would be the only opportunity for the police to gather enough evidence to convict. When Police suspect or are informed that such dealingsarebeingplanned,inordernottoalertthesuspectstheymightoptto makeacontrolleddelivery. 1.2.DescriptionoftheControlledDeliveryProcedure This technique would be better described rather than defined. Different countries have different legal frameworks or guideline documents for controlled deliveries. In Malta the concept of controlled deliveries was introducedthroughthe1994amendments.article30bofthedangerousdrugs Ordinance 30 describesitas: the#technique#of#allowing#an#illicit#or#suspect#consignment#of#a#dangerous#drug# to# pass# out# of,# through# or# into# Malta,# or# from# one# place# or# person# in# Malta# to# 29United#States#vs#Healy,D.C.Mont,202F349 30Chapter101oftheLawsofMalta 29
another# place# or# person# in# Malta,# or# into# the# territory# of# another# country,# with# the#knowledge#and#under#the#supervision#of#the#executive#police# #with#a#view#to# identifying# persons# involved# in# commission# of# offences# under# this# Ordinance 31 (emphasisaddedbytheauthor). In this first premise, fully aware that a drug consignment is about to pass throughmalta,thepoliceallowittotakeplaceundertheirsupervisioninorder toestablishitsoriginanditseventualendpointaswellastosecureevidence. Hence, they would be able to identify and detect those involved. This is controlleddelivery. Sub_article(3)ofthesameArticlefurtherstatesthat: It# shall# also# be# lawful# for# the# Executive# Police# or# for# a# person# under# the# supervision#or#direction#of#the#executive#police,#with#a#view#to#identifying#persons# involved#in#the#commission#of#offences#under#this#ordinance,#and#with#the#consent# of# the# Attorney# General# or# of# a# magistrate,# to# acquire# or# procure# a# dangerous# drug# #from#any#person#or#place. #(emphasisaddedbytheauthor). The second proposition refers to controlled dealing rather than controlled delivery. Controlled dealings are carried out through the use of undercover agents or informants whereby they will be authorized to obtain and acquire drugs from drug dealers. Both a controlled dealing as well as a controlled deliverypermitthepolicetoarresttheoffendersin#flagrante#delicto. Ourdescriptionof acontrolled delivery is modeled on that of the 1988 UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. 32 According to this Convention, controlled delivery is a technique allowing passage of illicit or suspect consignment with the knowledge and underthesupervisionofcompetentauthorities. 31Article30B(2),Cap101LawsofMalta;alsofollowingArticle121CofMedicalandKindred ProfessionsOrdinance,Cap.31oftheLawsofMaltaandArticle435Dand435EoftheCriminal Code,Cap.9oftheLawsofMalta. 32UnderArticle1(g) 30
Usually,Policehaveatipthatthereisgoingtobeadrugexchangeoradrug dealandtheysetupasurveillancetocatchthepartiesinflagrante;#oranother individual 33 makes an agreement with the Executive Police and under their surveillancehesetsupameetingwiththe new accusedsothatthepolicewill getholdofhim. 1.3.ControlledDeliveryProcedure 1.3.1.WhenNoSuspectIsIdentified InthefollowingcontrolleddeliveryPolicedidnotintrudeintheprocessofdrug trafficking.theywereawareofwhatwasgoingonandleteverythinghappen onitsown. 1.3.1.1.Repubblikata MaltavsSimonXuereb 34 On the 26 th of March 2001 the Police Drug Squad received anonymous informationthatapackagecontainingillicitdrugsarrivedinmaltafromcanada addressedtoacertainjoeportelli.nofurtherinformationwasgivenastowho weretheindividualsinvolved. Onthesameday,acontrolleddeliveryofthesuspectedpackagewasauthorized by the duty magistrate in terms of Article 30B of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance under the supervision of the Executive Police and the forensic expert.theaimandobjective 35 ofsuchcontrolleddeliverywastointerceptand identify the persons involved in such drug trafficking. Hence, the controlled deliverywasinitiatedwithnosuspectinmind. 33Inmostcasesaccusedofasimilaroffence 34CriminalCourt,5 th January2004,15/2003 35 SimilarlytoArticle121CofMedicalandKindredProfessionsOrdinance,Cap.31oftheLaws ofmalta(whichisequallyimportant)andarticle435dand435eofthecriminalcode,cap.9of thelawsofmalta. 31
ThepackagearrivedattheMaltapostonthe27 th ofmarch2001,thedayafter the information was given to the Police. The package was wrapped in brown paper and indicated as containing auto parts. Several attempts were made to deliverthenoticetoinformthoseresidinginthataddressthattheyreceiveda package,butnoonecameforwardtoclaimit.thepackagewasdeliveredtothe postofficeeverydayandkeptunderpolicesurveillanceuntilclosingtime.after such time it was delivered to the forensic expert and kept under his custody untilthefollowingmorning. Onthe31 st ofmarch2001,uponrequestofthepoliceinspector,themagistrate authorizedthatanidenticalpackage 36 bereproducedandtheoriginalonewas keptunderthecustodyoftheforensicexpert. PolicekeptsurveillingtheMaltapostbrancheveryday,andonthe23 rd ofapril 2001, a delivery man of the same post office presented l2avviż#għall2kunsinna# ta # pakk # and he was allowed to withdraw the package in question. Police followed him and later stopped him whereby he willingly made a statement andmentionedthenamesofthosewhohadaskedhimtowithdrawthepackage fromthepostoffice.fromthatpointonwards,followingarequestofthepolice, hefreelycollaboratedwiththem;inthesensethatheacceptedtocallthenext personinvolved. 37 The Magistrate was updated and informed with this development and he authorisedthattheprocessofthecontrolleddeliverywastocontinuesothat more of those involved would be identified. From this moment on the parcel exchanged hands various times, leading to a successful controlled delivery becauseallthoseinvolvedwerecaptured. Onthe24 th ofapril2001,themagistrateorderedsuchparceltobeopenedin hispresenceandunderhissupervision.testswererunonitscontents which confirmedthattheywereillicitdrugs. 36identicalinitsphysicalappearanceanditsweight 37thepersonwhohadaskedhimtowithdrawtheparcelfromthepostoffice. 32
ThiswasapropercontrolleddeliverywherePoliceobtainedallthenecessary authorisationsfromthemagistrateandthelatterwaskeptinformedeverystep oftheway.theoffencehadalreadybeencommitted; 38 theexecutivepolicedid notallowittogofurther.theycarriedoutsurveillanceandsimplylookedover thestorylinetounfold.thoseaccuseddideverythingthemselves;theyneeded no help from the Police for the execution of the offence. No reference to instigation or breach of human rights was made because Police were mere observers,theydidnotgetinvolved. 1.3.2.WhenHavingASuspectInMind In the next controlled delivery Police were aware that the defendant was traffickingdrugs,however,itwasthemwhotoldtheinformerwhattodo. 1.3.2.1.Repubblikata MaltavsHenryGroganet 39 In the Repubblika# ta # Malta# vs# Henry# Grogan# et the duty magistrate gave authorization for a controlled delivery to take place under Article 30B of Chapter 101 40 of the Laws of Malta. The authorization was for an informant, Anthony Calleja, to meet up with Henry Grogan 41 in order to enter into an agreementforthepurchaseofanestablishedamountofcannabis.itwasupon the instructions of the Inspector dealing with this case that Calleja requested 20#sapuna#raża#tal2cannabis #fromgrogan,butthelatterrepliedthathecould onlysupplyhimwith19,towhichcallejaagreed. Inthiscaseauthorizationwasgivenonthe20 th ofjanuary2010andonthe9 th offebruary2010callejareceivedasamplefromgrogan.itwasonthe10 th of February 2010 that the Magistrate was informed that Calleja was communicatingwithgroganwherebytheformertoldthelatterthathehadall 38DrugswereimportedinMalta 397/2012 40DangerousDrugsOrdinance 41thesuspect 33
themoney 42 necessaryforthedealtotakeplace.callejaandgroganmetatan agreed place and upon seeing the money, the latter called other people 43 to come forward with the drugs at which point they were all arrested. The controlleddeliverycametoanendupontheirarrest. 44 In this case the controlled delivery was challenged 45 and is still being challenged. 46 1.4.AControlledDealingFollowingPredispositionoftheSuspect 1.4.1.Pulizija(SpetturDennisTheuma)vsRosarioBrincat 47 As soon as Joseph Borg was arrested for drug trafficking, he alleged that his supplier was Rosario Brincat. He expressed his wish to collaborate with the PolicewherebythelattergotthenecessaryauthorizationfromtheMagistrate tocarryoutacontrolleddelivery.underpolicesupervisionborgcalledbrincat asking him whether he had sriedek 48 available. They agreed on a meeting place and before the operation started, Borg was strip_searched, a sort of assurance that he was not carrying anything illicit. Police gave photocopied moneytoborgandhemetwithbrincatattheagreedmeetingplace. Following such controlled dealing Brincat ended up being accused of drug trafficking.hisdefencewasthatsuchdealingwasillegalbecauseborghadonly assistedthepolice by way of vendetta against him because Borg owed him money.brincatalsoclaimedthatthemoneyborghadgivenhimweretherefore duesowedtohimandnotpaymentfordrugs.henegatedthefactthathewasa drugtrafficker. 42whichwassuppliedbythePolice 43whoarenowco_accusedwithhiminRepubbikata MaltavsHenryGroganet,7/2012 44thiscontrolleddeliveryhasbeenchallengedbysomeofthedefendants.Onechallengeisstill pending. 45AlanMuscatvsAG,45/2013 46HenryGroganetvsAG,80/2012 47CourtofMagistratesasaCourtofCriminalJudicature,22 nd March2014,22/2003 48wherebyone serduk #meantonegramofheroin 34
However,theCourtsaidthat il2faċilita #li#l2istess#borg#ċempel#biha#lil#brincat#u# rranġa# biex# jixtri# s2sriedek,# turi# li# dawn# kienu# ben# konoxxenti# ta # xulxin# u# tal2 prodotti# li# wieħed# ibiegħ# u# l2ieħor# irid# jixtri # The controlled delivery was deemed to be legitimate. It was only after Borg came out of the garage of the defendantthatthepolicefounddrugsinhispocket. 1.4.3.RequirementofConsentFromtheMagistrate 1.4.3.1.Repubblikata MaltavsAndre Falzon 49 This case was built upon a controlled delivery in terms of Article 30B of Cap 101 50 followinginformationthattheaccusedwasgoingtotakepartinadrug deal. From the time of authorization until the time of the controlled delivery itselftherewereonlyminutestospare.bjornformosa,informant,wentonsite asinstructedbythepolicetobuydrugsfromtheaccused. Thedefenceoftheaccusedwasthatthismentionedcontrolleddeliverywasnot done in accordance with the law, because no consent of the Magistrate or AG were exhibited in the judicial process. In the absence of such consent, he claimed thatthisinvestigativetechniquewas illegal to such an extentthatit amountedtoentrapment. However, the Court said that the law does not state that the abovementioned consent has to be made in writing ad# validitatem. In an ideal world, all authorisationsmadebythemagistratetotheexecutivepolicearedulywritten, signed and kept as part of the process. However, in reality, in most instances there would not be enough time for such consent to be given and made in writing.inthemajorityofcases,duetolackandconstraintsoftimetoorganize thecontrolleddelivery,thepoliceinformthedutymagistrateviaphone_calla fewmomentsbeforethecontrolleddeliveryisactuallycarriedout. 49CriminalCourt,10 th October2012,13/2009 50DangerousDrugsOrdinance 35
A verbal consent is frequently given, and it is only at a later stage that the relevantdocumentsaretrulysigned.suchdocumentsarenotnecessaryforthe validity of the controlled delivery, the most important thing is that there is proof and evidence that the Magistrate was informed and had given his consent. Xiehda#ġuramentata#tal2Ispettur#li#jkun#ottjena#tali#permess #isenough. Thecourtfoundnoproceduraldefectinthismentionedcontrolleddelivery. Fil2fatt# fil2maġġoranza# tal2każijiet# jirriżulta,# minħabba# n2nuqqas# ta # ħin# disponibbli# għall2pulizija# u# sabiex# jorganiżżaw# din# il2konsenja# kontrollata,# jinfurmaw# lill2maġistrat# propju# ftit# mumenti# qabel# ma# ssir# il2konsenja,# il2 Maġistrat# jagħti# l2kunsens# tiegħu# verbalment# imbagħad# aktar# tard# jiffirma# d2 dokumenti# għat2tali# konsenja.# Dawn# id2dokumenti# mhumiex# neċessarji# għall2 validita # tal2konsenja,# l2importanti# illi# jkun# hemm# prova# illi# l2maġistrat# ikun# ġie# nfurmat#u#ta#l2kunsens#tiegħu. # ## 1.5.IstheAuthorizationFromtheMagistrateAMereFormality? How is this method of special investigative techniques effective and transparent?howwillthemagistratediscernifthepolicebehavedinamorally reprehensiblemanner,i.e.beforeapleaisraisedbytheaccusedduringcriminal proceedings? Inrealitytheauthorizationismoreofaformalityratherthananythingelse.The magistrate is not really aware of the facts of the case, or how will such controlled delivery be executed or how were the investigations undertaken priortosuchdeliverybeingcarriedout.hecouldbeapprovingforanyabuse rendered as such by the police. The latter could be acting or have acted as agents#provocateurs,#butthemagistratewillnotknowuntilevidenceisbrought forward before the Court. It could be an embarrassment to the Magistrate to approveandconsenttosomethinglikethis. WhyistheretheneedforconsentifthisisobtainedinthefewmomentsPolice have to spare on their way to actually execute the delivery? Consent or 36
authorization of the Magistrate does not render the operation legitimate. It is apparentthattheyarealmostneverawaretowhattheyareconsenting.thisis demeaning on the office of the Magistrate. If everything is taken care of and managedbythepolice,itisthemwhoshoulddecidewhetherornotitwouldbe appropriateforacontrolleddeliverytotakeplace. IsupposethattheInspectorinvolvedintheoperationcouldandshouldbein constantcommunicationwiththemagistrate,i.e.fromthetimeoftheinitiation oftheinvestigations,untilthecontrolleddeliverytakesplace.idounderstand that sometimes there are ongoing investigations that take several months, howeverthemagistrateshouldatleastbeinformedwhentheabovementioned investigations reach an advanced stage. For instance if A is helpingthepolice againstb,themagistrateshouldbeinformedwhencommunicationsbetweena andbhaveescalated,i.e.whenanagreementseemstobeveryclosetoactually happen. Asthelawstandstoday,PolicegetthesealofapprovalwithouttheMagistrate scrutinizingtheirwork,atleastinaninformalmanner.thisisnotduetoany fault of the Magistrate himself because he is not in a position to question the operationbeforeapprovingit.cognizanceofthenamesofthoseinvolvedandof the place where the delivery is to take place is not enough to give proper authorization. The corollary is that it would be better if such requirement is made without, because when the controlled delivery is challenged it puts the magistrateinabadlightandallowsforahumiliationtohisoffice. 1.5.1.NoAuthorizationForControlledDeliveryWasObtained,YetItWas StillConsideredAsBeingOne 1.5.1.1.PulizijaSpetturNeilHarrisonvsRonaldPsaila 51 Police received anonymous information that Ronald Psaila had cannabis for sale.theinspectorwastoldtocallonaparticularnumber,belongingtopsaila, 51CourtofCriminalAppeal(InferiorJurisdiction),8 th January2002,187/2001 37