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

                                                                                                                     

 

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

 

 

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

 

v.

 

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

 

[1]                           LeBel 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.