## Facts

- The case involved a defendant, Bowen, whose conviction depended on evidence obtained through alleged entrapment by police or their agents.
- Bowen argued that his particular characteristics, including low IQ, should be taken into account when assessing whether he should have resisted any inducement to commit a criminal act.
- The legal dispute centered on the relevance of a defendant’s personal characteristics in determining the standard of firmness required to resist inducement to commit crime.

## Issues

1. Whether the standard of firmness applied to entrapment defenses should be objectively assessed, or reflect the individual vulnerabilities and characteristics of the defendant.
2. Whether age and sex are exceptions as relevant personal characteristics for assessing firmness in resisting inducement.
3. Whether personal characteristics such as low IQ or suggestibility should mitigate criminal liability when inducement is claimed.
4. Whether the conduct of law enforcement in inducing the commission of an offence affects the admissibility of evidence and the validity of conviction.

## Decision

- The House of Lords established that the correct test for resisting inducement is an objective standard: whether a hypothetical person of reasonable firmness, sharing only the defendant’s age and sex, would have succumbed.
- The court rejected the notion that other personal characteristics like low IQ or suggestibility are generally relevant, in order to preserve consistency in the law and avoid disparate standards of criminal responsibility.
- Age and sex were accepted as limited exceptions since they are objective and verifiable factors that may affect firmness.
- The ruling cautioned against using subjective vulnerabilities as a basis for defense in entrapment situations, as this would undermine equality before the law.
- The court clarified that successful challenge of evidence obtained through entrapment depends on the strength and nature of the police inducement, not on individual weaknesses.

## Legal Principles

- The objective standard of firmness applies in assessing whether evidence procured through inducement constitutes entrapment.
- Criminal responsibility should not vary based on subjective vulnerabilities, except for age and sex which may be considered.
- The focus in entrapment cases is primarily on the conduct of law enforcement and the inducement offered, not on the defendant’s susceptibility.
- The decision upholds the principle of equality before the law by minimizing subjective determinations of culpability.
- The precedent was distinguished from _R v Looseley_ [2001] UKHL 53, which concentrates more directly on police conduct rather than on the defendant’s capacity to resist inducement.

## Conclusion

Bowen v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis establishes that, in cases of claimed entrapment, only age and sex may be factored into the standard of reasonable firmness, thereby confirming an objective approach and precluding broader subjective defences based on personal vulnerabilities.


Bowen v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1997] 1 WLR 372