The trial of Lord Hardwicke a fortnight ago ended with a remarkable result.

Having been the target of a classic newspaper 'buy-and-bust' sting operation, the peer was on trial for supplying cocaine.

The jury had been directed that although Lord Hardwicke may have been set up and entrapped, this was no defence in law - in effect it was told to convict.

While it duly obeyed with a verdict of guilty, the jury members stated they wished to add a rider - they would have acquitted but for the direction that entrapment is no defence.Neither I nor others can recall a recent trial where a jury, while convicting a defendant, has expressed such disquiet about the law.

Clearly, it held that on the facts before it, the law and justice were at odds, maybe also the law and common sense.

The forthcoming appeal against conviction of Lord Hardwicke will therefore provide an opportunity for the appellate courts to reconsider the position.Since the 1979 House of Lords case of Sang, the courts have tolerated pe rsons being put on trial after they have been induced to commit an offence by an agent provocateur.

If defendants decide to commit an offence, they must take the consequences.Expressing misgivings about tactics - almost invariably conducted as part of undercover police operations - is not a judicial function.

At most, the judge can mitigate the sentence.The problem with this hardline stance is that it condones acts of incitement or enticement taken by police officers, or even as the Hardwicke case shows, by journalists looking for a scoop.

Probably few lawyers are comfortable with this.

Moreover, with the inexorable increase in undercover policing, this situation is bound to recur.

But what are the present safeguards against abuse by those in authority? If the courts will acquiesce with evidence obtained by these means and juries be told to convict, what real protections are there?In 1969 the Home Office distributed a circular to police forces advising against the use of entrapment.

And there are also some internal police guidelines.

However, the difficulty is that they are kept secret so no-one can complain if they are breached.

In other words, at present, there are no legal or other methods of accountability to ensure against abuse.

In fact the whole spectrum of undercover policing, including the activities of MI5, is a legal vacuum.As past depressing history shows, such legal and democratic deficits are left to fester until someone goes to Strasbourg and obtains a judgment from the European Court.

Then there is piecemeal reform with an ad hoc tribunal created - the classic instance of this concerns telephone tapping.However, the advent of the Human Rights Act might at last give the UK courts the potential to be more decisive.

The Hardwicke case seen in this light takes on a significance not otherwise apparent.Anticipating the Act and galvanised by the view of the jury, the higher courts might at last be willing to draw some lines about justice and proper practice in this area.

All the more so as there would be no criticism of any police officers, just of the News of the World journalists.The Hardwicke case also throws an interesting light on the likely future impact of the Act on crime.

Defence lawyers tend to place emphasis on article 6 - which covers the right to a fair trial - as being the most important protection but maybe this is mistaken.

Instead article 8 - dealing with the right to privacy - might be a better weapon exposing the lack of legal oversight in huge areas of modern policing.

For instance, the rule in Sang now seems untenable.

The Act obliges courts to protect Convention rights and pragmatic decisions not to become involved are no longer an option.Unless proper measures are put in place quickly to ensure article 8 compliance, the Act might oblige courts to throw out many cases.

Maybe the Home Office is listening.