Mr. Big police investigations: the interrogation trilogy and Charter implications

Mr. Big operations are a complex undercover investigative technique used to collect evidence on a suspect with limited evidence to press charges. The particular circumstances and very nature of a Mr. Big operation has led to considerable criticism regarding the difficulty of law enforcement being able to balance their independence and oversight concerning the rights of the accused. Furthermore, significant officer discretion is required. Various investigative strategies that are used in Mr. Big operations, from threatening the suspect, false presentations of evidence, untrue promises and enticements, alongside the complete alteration of reality, have demonstrated the possibility of severe police misconduct. These tactics undeniably raise concerns pertaining to the reliability of the evidence such as, if the confession was coerced, involuntary, or if the impact of these aggressive or enticing tactics could lead the suspect to confess falsely. Such techniques engage the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 7 and section 11(d), based on the fundamental principles of justice; these afforded legal rights are engaged to help protect the accused from an unreasonable state intrusion. The unique engagement of these rights and Mr. Big Operations has been addressed in the landmark case of R v Hart [2014], with a new common-law rule for addressing the reliability and protections of the accused. However, there is still a prominent lack of oversight and guidance in which there is vast opportunity for harmful police misconduct, increasing the potential for wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice