George. Diamantides V. Chief Inspector Of Mines (1950)
LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal
Agent provocateur—Impropriety of procuring ‘commission of an offence by an agent provocateur—Legality of conviction not affected—Meaning of the mord ” persons ” in the proviso to Regulation 53 (1) of the Mineral Regulations considered.
Facts
The appellant was convicted of recovering minerals in contravention of Regulation 53 (1) of the Minerals Regulations.
The facts disclosed that in consequence of information received from an informer the police deliberately trapped the appellant into receiving tin ore from the police.
On this appeal the Court considered (inter ails) the construction to be placed on the word ” persons ” in the proviso to Regulation 53 (1) of the Minerals Regulations, and the effect on the legality of a conviction when it was procured by means of an agent provocateur. On the second point appellant’s Counsel relied on the dictum of the Lord Chief justice of England in the case of Brannan v. Peek (1), declaring that the method of securing convictions by means of an agent provocateur was contrary to public policy and should not have been allowed to form the foundation of a prosecution or conviction.
Held
That the word ” person ” in the proviso to Regulation 53 (1) of the Mineral Regulations meant that the regulation did not apply to persons receiving minerals under section 68 of the Ordinance or to licensed gold dealers or to licensed goldsmiths. Accordingly the proviso did not afford any protection to the appellant in the circumstances of this case.
Held further, that it is unlawful for a police constable to provoke a crime, but not unlawful for a police constable to feign participation in a crime which is going on in order to observe and-obtain evidence. In this case, there was nothing to show that the police constable was present in order to obtain evidence of a crime being committed. The police constable had provoked the crime and his conduct was improper, but that did not affect the legality of the conviction, and was only material on sentence which this Court reduced.
Appeal against conviction dismissed, but sentence reduced.
