Tulisa Contostavlos, how does this even get to court?
Discussion
Do we not have entrapment rules, I find it hard to believe an 'undercover reporter' is allowed to do this and his 'evidence' used. And why is he not being prosecuted for trying to buy drugs and allowed to give evidence behind a screen to hide his identity.
No doubt she did bad but its a slippy slope to allow the press to fit people up like this for a story.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28328710
No doubt she did bad but its a slippy slope to allow the press to fit people up like this for a story.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28328710
Completely depends on the circumstances. That article has virtually nothing in it. If she has offered to sell drugs without provocation as part of a conversation, she commits the offence. She does not even have to be in a position to sell drugs, the mere offer to do so is an offence. I'm guessing if the CPS are happy to run with it, then the circs behind it are acceptable.
matjk said:
Do we not have entrapment rules, I find it hard to believe an 'undercover reporter' is allowed to do this and his 'evidence' used. And why is he not being prosecuted for trying to buy drugs and allowed to give evidence behind a screen to hide his identity.
Our entrapment rules are clear and defined.The layman's way of thinking of it is, "was she offered an unexceptional opportunity?" If so, it's not entrapment. So are our rules around evidential admissibility. An anonymity order is likely to be declined if it's the sole or decisive evidence against the accused IIRC so there is likely to be other evidence. The link to the reporter posing as someone who could get her into films would be scrutinised (as would every thing else).
matjk said:
No doubt she did bad but its a slippy slope to allow the press to fit people up like this for a story.
Slippery slope fallacy.There is probably also the element that the CPS is damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they didn't prosecute her you'd have people moaning about how the rich and famous live by different rules to the rest of us, and when they do run with it - with what might be a bit of a weak case as compared to others - they get accused of entrapment etc.
Notwithstanding the above, if our dear Tunisia wasn't a bit of a wrong 'un there would be no scope for entrapment anyway, would there?
Notwithstanding the above, if our dear Tunisia wasn't a bit of a wrong 'un there would be no scope for entrapment anyway, would there?
I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for this kind of thing as regards stolen property. Handling stolen goods, yes, but merely putting someone in contact with someone else doing the actual handling? No. Or is there some sort of conspiracy charge that covers that kind of thing? What has she actually done that's illegal?
Either way I think it's being blown way out of proportion.
Either way I think it's being blown way out of proportion.
over_the_hill said:
So someone you don't know comes along and effectively offers you a new better job or a promotion if you help them with a drug deal.
So let me think - the answer is
1) Yes - OK
2) No way
Heres a clue. It isn't 1)
Actually, it is 1; or something close.So let me think - the answer is
1) Yes - OK
2) No way
Heres a clue. It isn't 1)
It's
"I can't hep you, try talking to Dave, here's his number."
Centurion07 said:
I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for this kind of thing as regards stolen property. Handling stolen goods, yes, but merely putting someone in contact with someone else doing the actual handling? No. Or is there some sort of conspiracy charge that covers that kind of thing? What has she actually done that's illegal?
Either way I think it's being blown way out of proportion.
She was offering to broker the deal, as in she would be the go-between, and she clearly thought of herself as instrumental in the process. Allegedly of course.Either way I think it's being blown way out of proportion.
Slight difference there to saying "oh you want some coke? Try ringing this guy".
Centurion07 said:
I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for this kind of thing as regards stolen property. Handling stolen goods, yes, but merely putting someone in contact with someone else doing the actual handling? No. Or is there some sort of conspiracy charge that covers that kind of thing? What has she actually done that's illegal?
Either way I think it's being blown way out of proportion.
Concerned in the supply of controlled drugs. Means you're in the chain, have knowledge that it's controlled drugs being supplied and are offering them or supplying them. Either way I think it's being blown way out of proportion.
If she has brokered the deal as such then she's right in the middle of it.
In your example of handling, someone who puts someone in contact with a handler who they know or believe has stolen goods would be assisting in the goods being removed, realised, disposed of or retained, therefore committing the offence.
Centurion07 said:
I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for this kind of thing as regards stolen property. Handling stolen goods, yes, but merely putting someone in contact with someone else doing the actual handling? No. Or is there some sort of conspiracy charge that covers that kind of thing? What has she actually done that's illegal?
Like 'The Bear' says, the definition of handling covers this. There's also conspiracy. This is essentially a private test purchase. Lots of car stealing / cloning gangs have been taken down by similar (police, not private ones). This includes people who would act as a middle men / women.
Centurion07 said:
Either way I think it's being blown way out of proportion.
How can you judge that knowing the most superficial circumstances? What else should be done with someone where there's enough evidence to charge with being concerned in the supply of class A drugs? Keep in mind a police caution or any other disposal is off the cards as there is no admission.
Centurion07 said:
I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for this kind of thing as regards stolen property. Handling stolen goods, yes, but merely putting someone in contact with someone else doing the actual handling? No. Or is there some sort of conspiracy charge that covers that kind of thing? What has she actually done that's illegal?
Either way I think it's being blown way out of proportion.
I dealt with quite a few of these as a trainee/newly qualified solicitor. I recall that one co-accused was convicted of the being concerned offence when the actual 'drug' supplied was brick dust! The offences are usually detected by test purchase (police) officers with covert camera systems but I don't know anything about the Tulisa case.Either way I think it's being blown way out of proportion.
CPS gives a brief outline on its website:
"Section 4(3) of the Act creates offences of offering to supply, being concerned in the supply and being concerned in the making of an offer to supply. An offence of offering to supply can be prosecuted simply by proving the existence of an offer. The prosecution does not have to prove either that the defendant intended to produce the drugs or that the drugs were in his/her possession.
A defence under section 28 of the Act will not be applicable as the offence is the making of the offer. In deciding whether there has been an offer Prosecutors DO NOT have to refer to Contract Law (R v Dhillon (2000) CLR 760). The fact that the drug is different/not controlled/bogus is irrelevant as is the fact that there is/was no intention to supply (R v Goodard (1992) CLR 588; R v Mitchell (1992) CLR 723; R v Prior (2004) EWCA Crim 1147). The offer may be by words or conduct (R v Showers (1995) CLR 400). The exact identity of the substance is irrelevant.
The offences of being concerned will cover conduct which is preparatory to the actual supply, although the prosecution must prove that a supply, or an offer to supply, has been made. Prosecutors must examine the actual conduct of the defendant carefully to decide which offence is the most appropriate."
MrBarry123 said:
She's offered to broker a drug deal so why shouldn't she be punished? Couldn't she just have rejected the reporter's request?
Hardly fits in with the gangsta image does it... I'd also say that drugs are pretty common place in certain parts of the entertainment business. I'd say the only thing of note is how she dresses to go to court - when I've been for speeding I put on a boring suit and try and look as respectable as possible - she seems to think stripper heels and short skirts and low cut tops are in order. What will she be looking at anyway? A fine? I'd say the biggest hardship for her will be not being able to go to/work in the USA if she's found guilty.
MrBarry123 said:
She's offered to broker a drug deal so why shouldn't she be punished? Couldn't she just have rejected the reporter's request?
I know the case has now collapsed but if she should be punished for brokering a drug deal why shouldn't the reporter be punished for initiating a drug deal?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff