Borges wrote:> If the ICC or its corruption outfit had carried out that investigation the way the NOTW had,
> they would be guilty of entrapment and those responsible would have walked free.
Entrapment takes place when a person is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents ....
The anti-corruption unit of the ICC is not a law enforcement agency. If they discover something criminal, they cannot prosecute - they can hand over the evidence to the law enforcement agency for criminal action.
to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit. There is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.
Even if the police had carried out this sting operation, there would have been no entrapment in this case - not even in the USA, where entrapment laws are the most stringent,
So its not really a very good point, its very naive.
captaincolly wrote:If these allegations are proven correct-and the evidence is damning even if it has been provided by the News Of The World, I will find it hard to believe that the youngster Amir was a willing participant. Perhaps I'm naive or sentimental but it seems almost impossible that the young lad who enchanted everyone with his superb bowling and exuberance is a cynical cheat. Ordinarily I'd say anyone guilty of spot fixing or match fixing should be banned for life but surely there must be more to this than just blatant cheating? Or am I just being hopelessly naive?
SaintPowelly wrote:captaincolly wrote:If these allegations are proven correct-and the evidence is damning even if it has been provided by the News Of The World, I will find it hard to believe that the youngster Amir was a willing participant. Perhaps I'm naive or sentimental but it seems almost impossible that the young lad who enchanted everyone with his superb bowling and exuberance is a cynical cheat. Ordinarily I'd say anyone guilty of spot fixing or match fixing should be banned for life but surely there must be more to this than just blatant cheating? Or am I just being hopelessly naive?
I dont want to believe that he is guilty..but the evidence speaks for itself.. he could of made a statement by reporting these guys..or not bowling the no-balls and costing the bookies money.. but he didnt.. he knew what he was doing
Red Devil wrote:Makes you wonder what the issue with Younis might have been ... could it be that he was just unwilling to be involved in such thing?
Kim wrote:BTW re all the above written on entrapment, entrapment isnt a defence in UK law as far as I know (unlike the US).
Entrapment arises when a person is encouraged by someone in some official capacity to commit a crime. If entrapment occurred, then some prosecution evidence may be excluded as being unfair, or the proceedings may be discontinued altogether.
Some examples of entrapment are as follows:-
1. A police officer encourages a person to commit a crime so that the officer can have him prosecuted for that crime.
2. The greater the degree of entrapment by the police officer, the more likely the court will see it as entrapment. See the case R v Bryne [2003]. That is, entrapment is not a substantive defence (R v Sang); i.e. it does not automatically negate the prosecution case.
3. Customs Officers who aid and abet fraud in order to prosecute the fraud. A notorious example of this occurred in 2003. The 'Stockade' prosecution ended in failure when the Court of Appeal quashed convictions against seven people accused in connection with the alleged diversion of £105 million in excise duty (VAT). The conduct of such Excise diversion cases resulted in the loss of up to £2 billion in public revenue.[13]
If a person has committed an offence because of entrapment, the Court may stay the proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuses of process (which prevents the case going ahead) or exclude evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The grant of a stay is normally the most appropriate response.
The main authority on entrapment in the United Kingdom is the decision of the House of Lords in R. v. Loosely; Attorney-General's Reference (n.3 of 2000). A grant of a stay is awarded 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. These include:
* 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).
Kim wrote:BTW re all the above written on entrapment, entrapment isnt a defence in UK law as far as I know (unlike the US).
Dimi wrote: The US have stupid laws that come under the Constitution. Entrapment shouldn't be a law in the UK, though I guess you would have a better idea Kim.
SaintPowelly wrote:I don't understand that ( I must be stupid ) does that mean that there is a loophole or are they banged to rights ??
sussexpob wrote:mikesiva wrote:I think Salman's position is untenable - he has to step down as captain, and IMHO, Pakistan should be looking for three replacements for their ODI side.
All three deserve to be treated as innocent, until the full investigation and its findings have been carried out.
Return to International Cricket
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests