What must be present for the entrapment defence to apply?

The entrapment defense requires that authorities must have reasonable suspicion prior to inducing a crime. This principle is rooted in the idea that law enforcement can only encourage individuals to engage in criminal activity if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that those individuals are already involved in criminal behavior.

The essence of this defense is to prevent law enforcement from creating crime where there would be none and to protect citizens from being unduly influenced into committing offenses they would not have otherwise committed. Therefore, when assessing an entrapment claim, it's crucial to establish that prior to any inducement, there was a reasonable basis for the authorities’ actions.

This aligns with case law which emphasizes that entrapment may be invoked when a person was induced to commit an offense they had no predisposition to commit, producing an unacceptable risk of biased prosecution. For example, if the police knew about someone's criminal history or suspected them of engaging in criminal activity, it might justifiably warrant their actions in persuading that person to commit a crime.

The other choices do not align with the legal standards necessary for claiming entrapment. Observing the crime in progress does not automatically imply entrapment; prior criminal record is irrelevant to the defense itself; and a confession, while it can be