Jump to navigation
A Critical Assessment of Mr. Big Operations by Canada's Police
The Canadian law enforcement Mr. Big operation continues to pose the risk of producing false confessions and, therefore, miscarriages of justice. Some case law protections available to prevent suspects from making incriminating statements are explicitly inapplicable to confessions elicited from Mr. Big stings. The R v Hart (2014) common law rules have adequately helped to address this by further analyzing the particular circumstances of a Mr. Big operation in the pursuit of justice. The application of the R v Hart regulations has led to the inadmissibility of several confessions and one exoneration. However, it did not exhaustively address all of the collective grievances associated with the Canadian technique. The manner in which the R v Hart common law rule is applied varies between cases. Several cases are compared to Hart’s personal drastic circumstance, which by contrast reduces the perceived abuse of process. With increasing police accountability, the use of violent inducements have decreased, and financial inducements prevail. The possibility of injustice derived from this operation is still troubling. Canadians need more applicable legal protections.
Mr. Big (Investigation procedure)Canadian lawConfessionsNelson HartUndercover operationsCody Bates
This work is completed in entirety by Chanel J. Blais. All rights are reserved to the information provided within this document.
Undergraduate Student Research