R. v. Imoro, 2010 SCC 50, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 62

Case Summary

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing that the conduct of a police officer constituted entrapment. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the brief conversation between the police officer and the appellant did not ground a finding of entrapment. The Court noted that the appellant was not induced to commit a crime but was already engaged in criminal activities when he allowed the officer to witness a drug transaction.

Citation: R. v. Imoro, 2010 SCC 50, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 62

Date: 20101108

Docket: 33649

Between:

Aliu Imoro Appellant

and

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

and -

Attorney General of Ontario Intervener

Coram: LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.

Reasons for Judgment: (para. 1)

LeBel J. (Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ. concurring)

R. v. Imoro, 2010 SCC 50, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 62

Aliu Imoro Appellant

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

and

Attorney General of Ontario Intervener

Indexed as: R. v. Imoro

2010 SCC 50

File No.: 33649.

2010: November 8.

Present: LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

Criminal law — Defences — Entrapment — Conduct of police officer not constituting entrapment.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Laskin, Blair and Watt JJ.A.), 2010 ONCA 122, 264 O.A.C. 362, 251 C.C.C. (3d) 131, 207 C.R.R. (2d) 146, 72 C.R. (6th) 292, [2010] O.J. No. 586 (QL), 2010 CarswellOnt 771, setting aside the accused’s acquittals and substituting convictions. Appeal dismissed.

Benjamin Moss, for the appellant.

Nicholas E. Devlin and Lisa Csele, for the respondent.

Leanne Salel and Robert W. Hubbard, for the intervener.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

1LeBel J. — Like the Court of Appeal for Ontario, we are all of the view that there was no entrapment. On the facts of this case, the brief conversation between the police officer and the appellant near his apartment could not ground a finding of entrapment. The appellant himself allowed the police officer to witness a criminal drug transaction. The appellant was not induced to commit a crime, but was actually engaged in his criminal activities. By reason of our conclusion on entrapment, we need not express any opinion on the procedural issues raised by the parties in the courts below. The appeal is dismissed.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitor for the appellant: Benjamin Moss, Toronto.

Solicitor for the respondent: Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Toronto.

Solicitor for the intervener: Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.