Putting the Mr. Big technique back on trial: a re-examination of probative value and abuse of process through a scientific lens
| Published date | 09 May 2016 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-01-2015-0004 |
| Date | 09 May 2016 |
| Pages | 131-142 |
| Author | Kirk Luther,Brent Snook |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Forensic practice |
Putting the Mr. Big technique back
on trial: a re-examination of probative
value and abuse of process through a
scientific lens
Kirk Luther and Brent Snook
Kirk Luther and Brent Snook
are both based at the
Department of Psychology,
Memorial University,
St John’s, Canada.
Abstract
Purpose –A recent Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruling resulted in stricter rules being placed on how
police organizations can obtain confessions through a controversial undercover operation, known as the
Mr. Big technique. The SCC placed the onus on prosecutors to demonstrate that the probative value of any
Mr. Big derived confession outweighs its prejudicial effect, and that the police must refrain from an abuse of
process (i.e. avoid overcoming the will of the accused to obtain a confession). The purpose of this paper is to
determine whether a consideration of the social influence tactics present in the Mr. Big technique would
deem Mr. Big confessions inadmissible.
Design/methodology/approach –The social psychological literature related to the compliance and the six
main principles of social influence (i.e. reciprocity, consistency, liking, social proof, authority, scarcity) was
reviewed. The extent to which these social influence principles are arguably present in Mr. Big operations
are discussed.
Findings –Mr. Big operations, by their very nature, create unfavourable circumstances for the accused that
are rife with psychological pressure to comply and ultimately confess. A consideration by the SCC of the
social influence tactics used to elicit confessions –because such tactics sully the circumstances preceding
confessions and verge on abuse of process –should lead to all Mr. Big operations being prohibited.
Practical implications –Concerns regarding the level of compliance in the Mr. Big technique call into
question how Mr. Big operations violate the guidelines set out by the SCC ruling. The findings from the
current paper could have a potential impact of the admissibility of Mr. Big confessions, along with continued
use of this controversial technique.
Originality/value –The current paper represents the first in-depth analysis of the Mr. Big technique through
a social psychological lens.
Keywords Social influence, Confessions, Evidence reliability, Mr. Big technique, Probative value,
Undercover investigation
Paper type Conceptual paper
Police investigators are sometimes faced with instances where they are, for whatever reason,
unable to solve serious crimes (e.g. lack of evidence, no confession). In response to such
circumstances, some police organizations have employed elaborate undercover operations that
circumvent the rules of custodial interrogations (i.e. where the suspect is formally detained in
police custody). One type of undercover operation used to tackle such difficult cases in Canada
is known as the major crime homicide technique –known colloquially as the Mr. Big technique
(RCMP, 2011). In a recent Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruling (R. v. Hart, 2014), stricter rules
were placed on how police organizations can obtain confessions using this technique.
Received 25 January 2015
Revised 26 March 2015
Accepted 30 March 2015
This research was supported by
the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council
(SSHRC) of Canada Doctoral
Scholarship and Talent Award.
DOI 10.1108/JFP-01-2015-0004 VOL. 18 NO. 2 2016, pp. 131-142, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2050-8794
j
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PRACTICE
j
PAG E 13 1
To continue reading
Request your trial