Okay got it (I just read this post now). It is entrapment in my example. So this is why critics of C-36 say that the immunity provision and prohibition of the buying aspect makes the new law, state-sponsored entrapment.
Possible for C-36 to be immediatley S.C.C. CHALLENGED once Law.
- Thread starter Toronto`s Finest
- Start date
To answer your question. Judges do allow some degree of latitude for undercover cops to break the law during the course of their duties. It is entirely subjective. They must take into consideration the severity of the crime (We are talking about a summary conviction with a $500 fine in most instances here), whether or not allowing the abuse of process would undermine the administration of justice, and how admitting or excluding such evidence would impact the case for the crown.I didn't mean that the cop would go all the way to break the law, but I'm asking if he has some latitude to get her to admit by words or actions that she's going to engage sexually with him, but not cross that line.
Taking a very simple analysis, this is a very minor crime and as I pointed out before wouldn't really further the crowns case at all. It just provides some pretty limited circumstantial evidence at best. Furthermore, the for the judge to allow the police to break the very same law they are trying to enforce is probably would be seen to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It is just too hypocritical to say the least. In this case, I believe most judges would be inclined to exclude such evidence thereby discouraging such activities by police.
Wouldn't make a difference because a sex worker can legally sell her services.I didn't mean that the cop would go all the way to break the law, but I'm asking if he has some latitude to get her to admit by words or actions that she's going to engage sexually with him, but not cross that line.
Entrapment is allowed in many circumstances. If an mpa asks a guy "are you a cop?" he can lie & say no. However, he cannot engage in sex acts. It doesn't prove anything, & would open them up to tons of legal headaches, lawsuits, & charges.Okay got it (I just read this post now). It is entrapment in my example. So this is why critics of C-36 say that the immunity provision and prohibition of the buying aspect makes the new law, state-sponsored entrapment.
"Entrapment" isn't allowed as it violates the constitutional right to fundamental justice. You are referring to whether or not a cop can lie which is a completely different issue all together. Police lie all the time when conducting a interrogation of suspects which is allowed. Entrapment is where the cop does more than just provide an opportunity for a crime. It is where their conduct induces a crime which otherwise may not have occurred.Wouldn't make a difference because a sex worker can legally sell her services.
Entrapment is allowed in many circumstances. If an mpa asks a guy "are you a cop?" he can lie & say no. However, he cannot engage in sex acts. It doesn't prove anything, & would open them up to tons of legal headaches, lawsuits, & charges.
Thank you for answering my question.To answer your question. Judges do allow some degree of latitude for undercover cops to break the law during the course of their duties. It is entirely subjective. They must take into consideration the severity of the crime (We are talking about a summary conviction with a $500 fine in most instances here), whether or not allowing the abuse of process would undermine the administration of justice, and how admitting or excluding such evidence would impact the case for the crown.
Taking a very simple analysis, this is a very minor crime and as I pointed out before wouldn't really further the crowns case at all. It just provides some pretty limited circumstantial evidence at best. Furthermore, the for the judge to allow the police to break the very same law they are trying to enforce is probably would be seen to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It is just too hypocritical to say the least. In this case, I believe most judges would be inclined to exclude such evidence thereby discouraging such activities by police.
You're not understanding the premise of my question sexy. I'm not talking about arresting the provider, only trying to get her to admit to an undercover cop that she's REALLY offering sex, not mere companionship, so he can subpoena her in court under threat of perjury, and use her testimony as circumstantial evidence in another case against a john, who is claiming that he only paid for her companionship (according to one of Fuji's worst-case scenarios). So I was just curious if that cop posing as a john can get her to show her true colors if you will.Wouldn't make a difference because a sex worker can legally sell her services.
Bobcat40 has said unlikely in his post # 262.
Under the old rules, okay I get it. However, under the new legal regime, the only entrapment that we will see is if the provider is an undercover cop.Entrapment is allowed in many circumstances. If an mpa asks a guy "are you a cop?" he can lie & say no. However, he cannot engage in sex acts. It doesn't prove anything, & would open them up to tons of legal headaches, lawsuits, & charges.
I totally get it. And Bobcat is correct. They can't do that.You're not understanding the premise of my question sexy. I'm not talking about arresting the provider, only trying to get her to admit to an undercover cop that she's REALLY offering sex, not mere companionship, so he can subpoena her in court under threat of perjury, and use her testimony as circumstantial evidence in another case against a john, who is claiming that he only paid for her companionship (according to one of Fuji's worst-case scenarios). So I was just curious if that cop posing as a john can get her to show her true colors if you will.
Bobcat40 has said unlikely in his post # 262.
Under the old rules, okay I get it. However, under the new legal regime, the only entrapment that we will see is if the provider is an undercover cop.
Yes they could, but only as an indy. They couldn't in an agency, sc, or mp. She'd have to provide services. Or stop after 1 client. Lol.
You're a scholar. Thank you. However, isn't entrapment a legal tool now under C-36 since it immunizes sex workers? Undercover cops can pose as sex workers, lie that they are sex workers, perhaps even induce men, and get unsuspecting johns to communicate for the purposes of obtaining sex, would be easily nabbed without any consequences to the female cop. Correct?"Entrapment" isn't allowed as it violates the constitutional right to fundamental justice. You are referring to whether or not a cop can lie which is a completely different issue all together. Police lie all the time when conducting a interrogation of suspects which is allowed. Entrapment is where the cop does more than just provide an opportunity for a crime. It is where their conduct induces a crime which otherwise may not have occurred.
Highly unlikely that they would set up an undercover massage parlour, but they could have two gals working in a phony agency. The undercover cops do not have to lift a finger let alone their skirt. All they have to do is get the john to communicate for the purposes of obtaining sexual services. Then the handcuffs come on (there are some female cops and prosecutors that can handcuff me any time *wink*)I totally get it. And Bobcat is correct. They can't do that.
Yes they could, but only as an indy. They couldn't in an agency, sc, or mp. She'd have to provide services. Or stop after 1 client. Lol.
They may not stop after one client if nobody knows about the sting. (I'm talking purely hypothetical here; not scare mongering).
If an escort has already been involved in a case where a client was convicted and goes back and repeats it again, are there any repercussions then, or is she still, immune ??To answer your question. Judges do allow some degree of latitude for undercover cops to break the law during the course of their duties. It is entirely subjective. They must take into consideration the severity of the crime (We are talking about a summary conviction with a $500 fine in most instances here), whether or not allowing the abuse of process would undermine the administration of justice, and how admitting or excluding such evidence would impact the case for the crown.
Taking a very simple analysis, this is a very minor crime and as I pointed out before wouldn't really further the crowns case at all. It just provides some pretty limited circumstantial evidence at best. Furthermore, the for the judge to allow the police to break the very same law they are trying to enforce is probably would be seen to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It is just too hypocritical to say the least. In this case, I believe most judges would be inclined to exclude such evidence thereby discouraging such activities by police.
I think she's always immune, period. But as bobcat says, the cost vs benefit of conducting that kind of undercover operation just to produce circumstantial evidence at best is unlikely.If an escort has already been involved in a case where a client was convicted and goes back and repeats it again, are there any repercussions then, or is she still, immune ??
Plus, she will change the way she operates, location, etc. etc.
The entrapment is in the INDUCEMENT of a criminal act. Inducement being an deliberately executed intentional action by a law enforcement officer. Specific individual actions (lying about being a sex worker, up to directly propositioning a mark with an offer, and any other related behavior) would be examined and taken as a whole within the context of the situation to determine if the sum of the parts equates to unlawful inducement/entrapment.You're a scholar. Thank you. However, isn't entrapment a legal tool now under C-36 since it immunizes sex workers? Undercover cops can pose as sex workers, lie that they are sex workers, perhaps even induce men, and get unsuspecting johns to communicate for the purposes of obtaining sex, would be easily nabbed without any consequences to the female cop? Correct?
It is perfectly lawful for a police officer to verbally lie about being a sex worker, and also by the letter of the law perfectly lawful for a police officer (or any person) to proposition/offer sexual services for consideration to a mark. However, either/or, done together by a police officer, with demonstrable intent beyond a reasonable doubt to induce criminality being the motive for so doing, constitutes an act of entrapment, which is unlawful (to such extent that charges arising from said action will be dismissed.)
You are correct. There already has been debate on how C-36 is state sponsored entrapment and could be challenged on such grounds.You're a scholar. Thank you. However, isn't entrapment a legal tool now under C-36 since it immunizes sex workers? Undercover cops can pose as sex workers, lie that they are sex workers, perhaps even induce men, and get unsuspecting johns to communicate for the purposes of obtaining sex, would be easily nabbed without any consequences to the female cop. Correct?
Not sure about what you are asking but escorts are always immune. Theoretically, they could be "busted" many times with no direct legal repercussions. I am however sure her business might not be doing so well after that though.If an escort has already been involved in a case where a client was convicted and goes back and repeats it again, are there any repercussions then, or is she still, immune ??
So their turning them into bait, sort of say..I think she's always immune, period. But as bobcat says, the cost vs benefit of conducting that kind of undercover operation just to produce circumstantial evidence at best is unlikely.
Plus, she will change the way she operates, location, etc. etc.
Last edited:
The entrapment is in the INDUCEMENT of a criminal act. Inducement being an deliberately executed intentional action by a law enforcement officer. Specific individual actions (lying about being a sex worker, up to directly propositioning a mark with an offer, and any other related behavior) would be examined and taken as a whole within the context of the situation to determine if the sum of the parts equates to unlawful inducement/entrapment.
It is perfectly lawful for a police officer to verbally lie about being a sex worker, and also by the letter of the law perfectly lawful for a police officer (or any person) to proposition/offer sexual services for consideration to a mark. However, either/or, done together by a police officer, with demonstrable intent beyond a reasonable doubt to induce criminality being the motive for so doing, constitutes an act of entrapment, which is unlawful (to such extent that charges arising from said action will be dismissed.)
Well it begs the question. Is a cop posing as a sex worker, immune from entrapping a john under the C-36 regime, if she merely offers either by solicitation or an ad, sexual services for a fee? Or is immunity only granted to a real sex worker?
Bait, yes. (Like Fuji hypothesized).So their turning them into bate, sort of say..
Frankly, they'd have to pay the sex worker if they destroyed her business, otherwise that would make quite the headline "Cops destroy livelihood of consensual and free-thinking escort by using her as bait".
I actually saw that when I read the Technical Paper you posted (thanks for the link). That was a poorly drafted portion of the paper and relied on an incredibly weak reference that did not really say what the author suggested it did. Makes you wonder h.ow strong the other references the author relied on areI don't doubt your deep analysis. Unfortunately, it was wishful thinking on my part, because I quoted it directly from the government's own Technical Paper.
Exactly. I know that such papers or bulletins are no substitute for the law, but can they be relied upon by the courts to ascertain the meaning of ambiguous terms?I actually saw that when I read the Technical Paper you posted (thanks for the link). That was a poorly drafted portion of the paper and relied on an incredibly weak reference that did not really say what the author suggested it did. Makes you wonder h.ow strong the other references the author relied on are
This too is incorrect. There is way too much false legal information going on in these C-36 threads which is kind of sad. There is absolutely no need for the accused to " demonstrable intent beyond a reasonable doubt to induce criminality being the motive for so doing". This inducement can be done intentionally or unintentionally, the police motive doesn't matter at all.The entrapment is in the INDUCEMENT of a criminal act. Inducement being an deliberately executed intentional action by a law enforcement officer. Specific individual actions (lying about being a sex worker, up to directly propositioning a mark with an offer, and any other related behavior) would be examined and taken as a whole within the context of the situation to determine if the sum of the parts equates to unlawful inducement/entrapment.
It is perfectly lawful for a police officer to verbally lie about being a sex worker, and also by the letter of the law perfectly lawful for a police officer (or any person) to proposition/offer sexual services for consideration to a mark. However, either/or, done together by a police officer, with demonstrable intent beyond a reasonable doubt to induce criminality being the motive for so doing, constitutes an act of entrapment, which is unlawful (to such extent that charges arising from said action will be dismissed.)
From the SCC:
For a police officer to dress provocatively and proposition random people violates both parts of the test. An example of a legal method for police would be to set up a fake BP ad, wait for the guy to come into a hotel room and request sexual services from an undercover cop who can lie and say they are a sex worker. In such an instance, they merely have just provided an opportunity to commit an offense and the criminal would have just stepped into it. The police cannot do much more than that. If the undercover cop was naked and started kissing the man of her own accord for instance, they would be going ""beyond providing an opportunity and induce the commission of an offence".Entrapment occurs when (a) the authorities provide a person with an opportunity to commit an offence without acting on a reasonable suspicion that this person is already engaged in criminal activity or pursuant to a bona fide inquiry, and, (b) although having such a reasonable suspicion or acting in the course of a bona fide inquiry, they go beyond providing an opportunity and induce the commission of an offence.
Indeed, here is a brief to the Senate by a researcher. Page 7 talks about that possible challengeYou are correct. There already has been debate on how C-36 is state sponsored entrapment and could be challenged on such grounds.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/412/lcjc/Briefs/C-36/SM_C-36_brief_John_Lowman_E.pdf
In that case, it's not really the cop performing the entrapment. The law by itself induces people to break the law (services are legally offered), so every time a client gets arrested in any circumstances, he can say he has been entrapted by the government. Even without a challenge, maybe that argument would make any arrest under this law impossible to prosecute..?.
