Law of Evidence Regarding the Application of Electronic Monitoring Equipment

The police enter Tom’s house whilst he is out, bugs his telephone and installs a camera having received a tip-off that he is growing cannabis plants in his kitchen. After acquiring some evidence the police go to his house, do not identify themselves but call in plain clothes saying ‘’we, ve heard you ‘ve got plants for sale’’. Tom replied that he had some to sell for a friend. The officers are shown in and identifying the plants informs Tom in respect of the offense. Tom states that he thought the plants his friend had left him to sell were ordinary house plants.
Question:&nbsp. Identify the issues in the case. In respect to each issue advise Tom who has the burden of proof and the standard of proof requiredIn the above scenario, it will be necessary to examine the law in relation to the use of electronic monitoring equipment. This will involve an examination of case law in order to determine whether the use of such equipment would be permitted in this particular situation, as well as the legality of the officers entering his house when he was out. It will also be necessary to discuss whether the methods used by the undercover officers could be regarded as entrapment, given that the officers posed as potential customers in order to get Tom to admit to selling cannabis plants.Since Tom has averred that he did not know that the plants were cannabis and that they belonged to a friend, it will be necessary to discuss on whom the burden of proof would be placed to prove or disprove this assertion. This can be achieved through analysis of the Drugs Act 1971 as well as previous case law in this area. From this, it should be possible to advise Tom in relation to the burden and standard of proof required by himself and the prosecution, in order to prove or disprove the offense.Listening devices
The messages recorded revealed plans for the illegal immigration of illegal entrants. Even though the police had covertly recorded these conversations, the court still ruled that the evidence should be admissible.&nbsp.