Beginning in the 1960s, and escalating in usage into the 1980s, Canadian police forces began utilizing a new method of undercover police work to elicit confessions from suspects in cases that seem to have hit a wall. Applying this technique, a group of undercover police officers create a fictitious criminal organization and attempt to entice their targets into becoming interested in this organization. Slowly, methodically, and over an extended period, the officers gained the suspect’s trust and respect. Once established, they ask them to engage in ‘simulated’ crimes, which are elaborate scenarios designed by the police to look real. Once this step has taken place, the suspect is introduced to the leader of the ‘gang’, and the namesake for this
…show more content…
The. The State of the Law pre-2014 In the 1990s, as the popularity of Mr. Big increased in police forces across Canada, the admissibility of Mr. Big confessions was defended by the Supreme Court, despite the concerns that the practice raised about their reliability. In R v Grandinetti, as an example, the court dismissed an accused’s claim that his confession to undercover police officers whom he thought were simple criminals, should be covered by the confessions rule, and a Venezuelan will thus have been done. Other attempts to render Mr. Big's confessions inadmissible have also failed. Challenges based on the Charter-protected right to silence failed Mr. Big, as the accused were not detained at the time of their confession. Academics at the time developed different theories about how the Mr. Big confessions and, more broadly, the confession rule, could become constitutionally protected. Arguments were made about how the Canadian “principled approach” to hearsay could be used. Regardless of the proposed remedial framework, academics broadly regarded the current situation as inadequate. There were few ways to exclude the Mr. Big confessions, and each approach had a very narrow avenue for usage. The statistics reflected the law’s leniency toward Mr. Big confessions and the difficulty of excluding them. According to the RCMP, before 2014, in 75% of the cases where the Mr. Big strategy was implemented, a charge was ultimately laid due to a confession being made. There have been multiple studies done on the success of the prosecution of these cases, and what is clear is that anywhere between 88 and 95% of the confessions resulted in convictions. This is an extraordinarily high rate of success, especially when compared to the federal average before 2014 of 64% of all charges resulting in convictions. B. R. v Hart 1. Background to Hart i.
The. The State of the Law pre-2014 In the 1990s, as the popularity of Mr. Big increased in police forces across Canada, the admissibility of Mr. Big confessions was defended by the Supreme Court, despite the concerns that the practice raised about their reliability. In R v Grandinetti, as an example, the court dismissed an accused’s claim that his confession to undercover police officers whom he thought were simple criminals, should be covered by the confessions rule, and a Venezuelan will thus have been done. Other attempts to render Mr. Big's confessions inadmissible have also failed. Challenges based on the Charter-protected right to silence failed Mr. Big, as the accused were not detained at the time of their confession. Academics at the time developed different theories about how the Mr. Big confessions and, more broadly, the confession rule, could become constitutionally protected. Arguments were made about how the Canadian “principled approach” to hearsay could be used. Regardless of the proposed remedial framework, academics broadly regarded the current situation as inadequate. There were few ways to exclude the Mr. Big confessions, and each approach had a very narrow avenue for usage. The statistics reflected the law’s leniency toward Mr. Big confessions and the difficulty of excluding them. According to the RCMP, before 2014, in 75% of the cases where the Mr. Big strategy was implemented, a charge was ultimately laid due to a confession being made. There have been multiple studies done on the success of the prosecution of these cases, and what is clear is that anywhere between 88 and 95% of the confessions resulted in convictions. This is an extraordinarily high rate of success, especially when compared to the federal average before 2014 of 64% of all charges resulting in convictions. B. R. v Hart 1. Background to Hart i.