Confessions to Mr Big: A new rule of evidence?

Brendon MURPHY, John Anderson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In Queen v Hart, the Supreme Court of Canada recognised what was described as a ‘new rule of evidence’ concerning confessions obtained during ‘Mr Big’ operations. This undercover policing technique is known to be a time-intensive but effective strategy in the investigation of cases in which suspects are highly secretive. In Hart, the Canadian Supreme Court recognised the value of this form of investigation, but emphasised that such strategies require careful scrutiny by the judiciary because of the potential for unethical policing and the unreliability of confessions in cases where this evidence is obtained in association with ‘entrapment’ strategies. This article examines the ‘novel’ jurisprudence in Hart, and considers its utility in the context of other common law countries, particularly Australia where uniform evidence legislation applies in the majority of jurisdictions. Ultimately it is contended that the ‘new rule of evidence’ in Hart is effectively a specific adaptation of well-known rules of evidence in the extant common law and legislation of Australia, England and New Zealand and, therefore, of limited utility outside Canada.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)29-48
Number of pages20
JournalInternational Journal of Evidence and Proof
Volume20
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

evidence
common law
Supreme Court
legislation
Canada
judiciary
jurisprudence
jurisdiction
New Zealand
Values
time

Cite this

@article{ea23a7a176b64a409f064ef637c1e48a,
title = "Confessions to Mr Big: A new rule of evidence?",
abstract = "In Queen v Hart, the Supreme Court of Canada recognised what was described as a ‘new rule of evidence’ concerning confessions obtained during ‘Mr Big’ operations. This undercover policing technique is known to be a time-intensive but effective strategy in the investigation of cases in which suspects are highly secretive. In Hart, the Canadian Supreme Court recognised the value of this form of investigation, but emphasised that such strategies require careful scrutiny by the judiciary because of the potential for unethical policing and the unreliability of confessions in cases where this evidence is obtained in association with ‘entrapment’ strategies. This article examines the ‘novel’ jurisprudence in Hart, and considers its utility in the context of other common law countries, particularly Australia where uniform evidence legislation applies in the majority of jurisdictions. Ultimately it is contended that the ‘new rule of evidence’ in Hart is effectively a specific adaptation of well-known rules of evidence in the extant common law and legislation of Australia, England and New Zealand and, therefore, of limited utility outside Canada.",
keywords = "Undercover policing, ‘Mr Big’ technique, confessions, admissibility, reliability, 'Mr Big' technique",
author = "Brendon MURPHY and John Anderson",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1177/1365712715613485",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "29--48",
journal = "International Journal of Evidence and Proof",
issn = "1365-7127",
number = "1",

}

Confessions to Mr Big: A new rule of evidence? / MURPHY, Brendon; Anderson, John .

In: International Journal of Evidence and Proof, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2016, p. 29-48.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Confessions to Mr Big: A new rule of evidence?

AU - MURPHY, Brendon

AU - Anderson, John

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - In Queen v Hart, the Supreme Court of Canada recognised what was described as a ‘new rule of evidence’ concerning confessions obtained during ‘Mr Big’ operations. This undercover policing technique is known to be a time-intensive but effective strategy in the investigation of cases in which suspects are highly secretive. In Hart, the Canadian Supreme Court recognised the value of this form of investigation, but emphasised that such strategies require careful scrutiny by the judiciary because of the potential for unethical policing and the unreliability of confessions in cases where this evidence is obtained in association with ‘entrapment’ strategies. This article examines the ‘novel’ jurisprudence in Hart, and considers its utility in the context of other common law countries, particularly Australia where uniform evidence legislation applies in the majority of jurisdictions. Ultimately it is contended that the ‘new rule of evidence’ in Hart is effectively a specific adaptation of well-known rules of evidence in the extant common law and legislation of Australia, England and New Zealand and, therefore, of limited utility outside Canada.

AB - In Queen v Hart, the Supreme Court of Canada recognised what was described as a ‘new rule of evidence’ concerning confessions obtained during ‘Mr Big’ operations. This undercover policing technique is known to be a time-intensive but effective strategy in the investigation of cases in which suspects are highly secretive. In Hart, the Canadian Supreme Court recognised the value of this form of investigation, but emphasised that such strategies require careful scrutiny by the judiciary because of the potential for unethical policing and the unreliability of confessions in cases where this evidence is obtained in association with ‘entrapment’ strategies. This article examines the ‘novel’ jurisprudence in Hart, and considers its utility in the context of other common law countries, particularly Australia where uniform evidence legislation applies in the majority of jurisdictions. Ultimately it is contended that the ‘new rule of evidence’ in Hart is effectively a specific adaptation of well-known rules of evidence in the extant common law and legislation of Australia, England and New Zealand and, therefore, of limited utility outside Canada.

KW - Undercover policing

KW - ‘Mr Big’ technique

KW - confessions

KW - admissibility

KW - reliability

KW - 'Mr Big' technique

UR - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1365712715613485

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/confessions-mr-big

U2 - 10.1177/1365712715613485

DO - 10.1177/1365712715613485

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 29

EP - 48

JO - International Journal of Evidence and Proof

JF - International Journal of Evidence and Proof

SN - 1365-7127

IS - 1

ER -