- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
R v Latif
Factual and Procedural Background
Between February and March 1991 the Crown Court in The City tried two individuals, hereafter “Appellant 1” and “Appellant 2”, for allegedly being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importing approximately 20 kg of diamorphine into The State. The prosecution arose from a covert operation planned by “Agency A” (the customs authority of The State) and “Agency B” (a foreign drug-enforcement body). An informer (“Informer”) posed as an intermediary able to move drugs via an airline pilot; a customs officer, acting without a licence, transported the heroin to The State so a controlled delivery could be staged.
On 20 May 1990, after monitored discussions in a hotel room, Appellant 2 accepted six bags he believed contained heroin, and both appellants were arrested. A jury convicted them on Count 1 (fraudulent evasion); Count 2 (attempt) was left untried. Sentences of 16 and 20 years were imposed.
The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed their appeals on 10 March 1994 but certified questions of public importance. The House of Lords heard conjoined appeals and, on 18 January 1996, delivered the present judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the proceedings should have been stayed as an abuse of process because law-enforcement officials allegedly incited Appellant 2 to commit the offence and enticed him into the jurisdiction.
- Whether the trial judge ought to have excluded covertly obtained evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
- Whether, at the close of the prosecution case, there was sufficient evidence for a conviction of “fraudulent evasion” under section 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, as distinguished from mere attempted evasion.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- Officials from “Agency A”, aided by the Informer, instigated the offence and unlawfully imported the heroin themselves; continuing the prosecution was therefore oppressive and should be stayed.
- The evidence—procured through deception, covert recording and an unlicensed importation—ought to have been excluded under section 78 because its admission rendered the trial unfair.
- The customs officer’s independent decision to bring the drugs into The State broke the chain of causation; consequently no completed offence occurred and there was “no case to answer.” In the alternative, any attempt took place abroad and lay outside the jurisdiction of courts in The State.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Covert facilitation is often essential to combat international drug trafficking; the conduct at issue was proportionate and did not shock the conscience so as to require a stay.
- The appellants’ defence was not prejudiced; taped evidence ensured reliability, so section 78 did not bar its admission.
- Even if a completed evasion was not established, the undisputed facts proved attempted evasion within section 170(2); any misdescription in the indictment was technical and non-prejudicial.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Regina v. Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, Ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42 | Court’s inherent power to stay proceedings where continuation would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system. | Provided the balancing framework for determining whether official misconduct warranted a stay. |
| Somchai Liangsiriprasert v. Government of The State [1991] 1 AC 225 | Legitimacy of luring suspects into a jurisdiction; such tactics are not necessarily abusive. | Cited to rebut the claim that enticing Appellant 2 to The State was per se oppressive. |
| Director of Public Prosecutions v. Stonehouse [1978] AC 55 | Jurisdiction over attempts committed abroad when the intended substantive offence is to occur within the forum state. | Used to dismiss the argument that an attempt formed overseas lay beyond the jurisdiction of the courts in The State. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Abuse of Process. Entrapment is not itself a defence. The trial judge correctly undertook a balancing exercise: the public interest in prosecuting serious drug offences outweighed the wrongdoing alleged against law-enforcement agents. The officers’ deception, while disapproved, was not so reprehensible as to affront public conscience; the appellants were willing and sophisticated participants who voluntarily entered The State.
Section 78 PACE. The judge found, and the House agreed, that admitting the covertly obtained evidence did not adversely affect trial fairness. Recordings were available; no statutory protections were breached; thus exclusion was unwarranted.
No Case to Answer. Although importation was physically carried out by a customs officer, section 170(2) criminalises both completed and attempted evasions. The appellants’ acts—delivering heroin abroad for shipment to The State and seeking to collect it in The City—were more than preparatory and amounted to attempted evasion. Any misdescription in the indictment was immaterial: the same evidence proved liability, and the defence suffered no prejudice.
Holding and Implications
APPEALS DISMISSED; CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED.
The House maintained the sentences of both appellants. The decision confirms that:
- Courts will not stay prosecutions solely because law-enforcement officers employed deception, unless the misconduct reaches a level that would shock the conscience of the court.
- Section 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 embraces both evasion and attempted evasion; a technical pleading error will not invalidate an otherwise proper conviction absent demonstrable prejudice.
The ruling therefore strengthens the ability of authorities to employ controlled-delivery techniques while delineating the threshold for judicial intervention on grounds of abuse of process.
Alert