The controversy surrounding entrapment and covert policing operations and the admissibility of the evidence they produce has been reignited by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Teixeira de Castro v Portugal and its interpretation in a number of English cases. This article offers an examination of the cases and offers a principled approach. Drawing on the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court in Mack, it proposes a more structured and coherent scheme to regulate the authorisation and conduct of entrapment operations and remedies for abuses of entrapment.

Case: Ireland Law report: [1996] 3 WLR. 650; [1997] 1 All ER 112 (references are to the Weekly Law Reports)

As anyone who even glances at the law reports will realise, the torrent of English cases dealing with points of evidence continues unabated. When coupled with the growth in academic comment on the subject, the resulting volume of material can all too easily lead to confusion and disillusionment amongst students tackling evidence for the first time. The market for materials books on the law of evidence cannot be doubted. Any book which can filter out the less important material and provide the student with a collection of essential materials to focus their study will clearly be a valuable one.

Boxing, in particular professional boxing, has been bedevilied in recent years by a number of highly publicised tragedies in the ring. Despite these tragedies, the Law Commission in its recent Consultation Paper declined the opportunity to review the legality of professional boxing. The Law Commission concluded that‘boxing, if it is to remain lawful, can only do so by the application of public policy considerations that are particular to that sport. Since that is a matter of pure policy, divorced from the more general considerations addressed in this Paper, we do not think it would be useful for us to add to the already formidable public debate on the issues.