Mr Big Operations Briefing paper

Dayna Ortland
1. Executive summary 
This report aims to investigate the use of Mr Big Operations across jurisdictions
and recommend ways Mr Big Operations can be more pragmatic. Through
information-gathering methods and critical reflection, Mr Big has been analysed.
This analysis has revealed that the concerns of its costly nature, coerciveness, the
target of suspect vulnerabilities and the number of false confessions produced
outweighs the rationale and value for its use. Recommendations are provided to
rectify these hindrances and suggest ways to prevent miscarriages of justice from
occurring.

2. Introduction 
The Mr Big concept is a controversial covert police operation, utilising scenarios
to lure suspects into a fabricated criminal organisation to elicit a confession
(Cowley, 2018; Glazebrook, 2016.) Mr Big Operations utilisation in Canada,
Australia and New Zealand as an investigative tool to solve cold cases is highly
contentious. The operation and tactics used have revealed a trend of selecting
vulnerable targets and calibrating the scenarios to exploit their vulnerabilities
(MacKinnon, 2019; Phelan, 2019.) Through research gathering methods, the
advantages and disadvantages of the method are revealed. The evaluation of Mr
Big Operations will also inform recommendations on what aspects require an
urgent overhaul.

3. Description of methods  
The main source of information was found through searching the legal databases
of Austlii, Canlii and Nzlii. This produced court transcripts of previous cases to
reveal how scenarios may have played out and any vulnerabilities the targets
possessed. Reading through news articles, listening to podcasts and viewing
content on Netflix and YouTube also assisted with gathering information. Another
method used to understand connections was through social networking plots.
Lastly, searching through library databases for scholarly sources also provided
literature on vulnerabilities.
The main limitation of my research was that many of the court transcripts lacked
information on the scenarios. They also failed to detail much information on what
occurred during the operation, making it difficult to compare cases. Many of the
court transcripts didn't mention any mitigating factors of the target which, hindered
my ability to give the most accurate representation of which vulnerabilities Mr Big
Operations target most.

4. Background of Mr Big Operations

Description of the Mr Big Technique 
Mr Big Operations are a covert operation utilising undercover police operatives.
These operations attempt to solve homicide and missing person cases, where they
often have a suspect in mind but have little evidence or cooperation from the
suspect to convict them for the crime (Jochelson, 2019.) The goal is to elicit a
confession from the suspect, who is the main target. The operations consist of
many scenarios where they entice the suspect with substantial inducements. They
create a fictitious criminal organisation and involve the target in tasks to formulate
a sense of trust and mateship (Glazebrook, 2016.) The undercover operatives then
attempt to get the suspect to disclose information regarding their criminal history
to join the gang permanently. This is done to obtain a confession from the suspect.

History (where the technique originated) 

The Mr Big Operation is a Canadian technique pioneered by the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP.) Mr Big Operations began in the early 1990s in British
Columbia. Following Mr Big’s implementation in British Columbia, it spread
quickly to other provinces and overseas countries like Australia and New Zealand
(Jochelson, 2019.) 

Summary of jurisdictions using the Mr Big technique 

o Canada 
Beginning in the early 1990’s Canada has used these operations in many cases.
However, as a result of R v Hart, the Supreme Court of Canada tightened the
 parameters for future operations but did not ban them outright (Luther &
Snook, 2015.) What was ruled was the prejudicial nature of the confession
should only be ignored if the confession has a high probative value, which the
Crown prosecution would bear the burden of proof (Luther & Snook, 2015.)
The second ruling is any action that may make the confession coerced may be
deemed unacceptable. This is because the use of violence, targeting a suspect’s
vulnerabilities and threats amounts to an abuse of process (MacKinnon, 2019;
Luther & Snook, 2015.)  

o New Zealand 
Sometimes referred to as the Crime Scenario Undercover Technique, their take
on Canada’s operation was first implemented in 2007 (Jochelson, 2019.) The
technique is not used as frequently in New Zealand compared to Canada and
Australia; however, it is admissible as evidence with a few exceptions. Their
Mr Big Operations must have no presence of violence or threats and ensure that
no actual offences are committed in the investigation (Jochelson, 2019.) Thus,
employing a more modest version of Mr Big.

o Australia 
The importation of Mr Big Operations in Australia happened in the early 2000s
(Jochelson, 2019.) In 2007 in the case of R v Tofilau, the High Court of
Australia ruled that confessions made during a Mr Big Operation were
admissible as evidence (Bevin, 2014.)

5. Rationale and value of Mr Big operations 

Mr Big Operations are usually employed as a “last resort” in unsolved homicide
and missing person cases when all other traditional investigative techniques have
failed (New Zealand Law Society, 2016.) The operations can occur as soon as the
case goes cold or many years after. The justification regarding the use of this
method reflects an “end justifies the means” approach (East, 2017.) The prospect
of solving the murder is of great importance and, any method of getting to that
goal is deemed acceptable in the context of the Mr Big Operation. But how far is
too far? There have been many cases solved through Mr Big Operations and they
can be of great value. It is a method than can extract confessions and produce
probative evidence (Moore and Keenan, 2013.)

6. Concerns about Mr Big Operations  

One concern that these operations present is coerced false confessions. Coerced
false confessions are linked to suspect vulnerability, suggestibility and compliance
(Connors, 2019.) In many operations, before the Supreme Court of Canada ruling
in 2014, threats of violence and the use of violence to elicit a confession during the
operation were prominent. Operation Decisive involving suspect Clayton Mentuck
reported being scared and threatened into a confession by members of the “gang”
after denying his involvement. In many other cases, like Atif Rafay and Sebastian
Burns, coerced compliant confessions occur. This is where someone falsely
confesses when they are not guilty, just to escape the situation or receive the
reward offered to them (Case Cache, 2021.) This epitomises that some groups of
people are more vulnerable to the effects of coercive tactics than others.

Another concern about these operations is the lack of external oversight. Mr Big
Operations are the most deceitful and invasive method of policing tactics, yet is the
least regulated (East, 2017.) As the operations possess elements of deceptiveness
and coerciveness, police must continue to act within the bounds of the law when
coordinating these operations. The power imbalance between the suspect and the
police operatives has the potential for abuse to be present, hence the need for more
accountability and oversight (East, 2017; Puddister, 2010.) The literature
showcases that RCMP often engages in very informal resolution practices of
misconduct by their operatives and, the current governing legislation is inadequate
(Puddister, 2010.)
7. Vulnerability of targets 
Through researching Mr Big Operations, it is evident that they prey on suspects
with vulnerabilities, which epitomises that certain groups are more vulnerable to
be influenced and thus produce false confessions (Smith & Stinson, 2009.) In these
operations, officers are permitted to exploit a suspect’s vulnerabilities and, this is
done by offering certain inducements or constructing a scenario to target their
weaknesses (Connors, 2016.) One of the most common vulnerabilities seen
through my analysis of cases was individuals who were struggling financially.
Many of whom were suffering from unemployment or homelessness as well. For
these types of people experiencing financial hardship, the inducements offered to
them had nothing but upside for them to admit to the crime and receive the
financial offerings and nothing but downside for them to deny the offence
(Milward, 2013.)
Another common vulnerability was young age. By looking at many cases where
these operations occurred, they mainly targeted people of young age, with the

median age being mid 20’s. Research states that this is a vulnerability as the
younger you are, the more suggestible you are (Redlich and Goodman, 2003.)
Young adults (who seem to be the target age) are cognitively and psychologically
less mature than fully developed adults. These maturity levels are also reflected in
their decreased ability to consider long-term consequences and increased
likelihood to engage in risky behaviours (Kasin, Drizin, Grisso et al., 2009.) All of
which points towards why young people would engage with these “criminal
organisations.” It was also noted that all but one case targeted males. This might be
because women are less suggestible and, males are more likely to elicit false
confessions than females (Cloutier-Lada, 2011; Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson et al.,
2016.) Other common vulnerabilities that became evident when analysing cases
that utilised Mr Big Operations were substance misuse, low education, psychiatric
problems and being socially isolated.

8. Cost v benefit analysis 

Mr Big Operations do have the ability to be of benefit when investigations have
reached a standstill as they sometimes can be a successful method of securing
incriminating evidence from a suspect (Moore and Keenan, 2013; R v Cowan
2014.) In many instances, these operations have successfully led operatives to
murder weapons or the location of a deceased body (Blais, 2020.) If these
operations have successful outcomes like this, they can bring comfort and
peace of mind to victims’ family and hold perpetrators to account. It has also
been contended by experts that the operations are “ingenious” and an effective
way of solving cases, as the RCMP state that they have produced charges in
75% of the cases where the operations have been used (Luther and Snook,
2016; Moore and Holmgren cited in Blais, 2020.) Whilst these operations
should not be disputed as they can expose guilty parties, they also render false
confessions. Thus, presenting Mr Big Operations as a double-edged sword. 

The first cost of these operations is that they are tedious. Social network
plotting reveals that these operations are time-consuming and require many
operatives, sometimes up to 50 which, maybe better deployed elsewhere
(Connors, 2016.) When analysing the cases, what was also evident was how
costly these operations can be. On many occasions’ suspects were paid
upwards of $10,000 for their involvement in tasks (R v Subramaniam, 2016; R
v Buckley, 2018; R v Spencer, 2015; R v Hart, 2008.) This does not include the
price of other inducements such as dinners and drinks, overnight stays and
plane tickets. The wages of all operatives involved are also not included.
Sometimes, operations can reach the millions (Luther & Snook, 2016; Connors,
2016.) Non-monetary costs are just as considerable. The psychological toll on
innocent suspects when they are subject to these operations is momentous
(MacKinnon, 2019.) The operations use of coercive tactics preying on suspects
vulnerabilities allows the operatives to take advantage of them, rendering them
even more vulnerable than before (Phelan, 2019) This, produces false
confessions and wrongful convictions where these costs are incalculable. 

Through the analysis of the costs and benefits, what is evident is that there is no
doubt that these operations can produce probative evidence. These operations
also have the capabilities to help solve cold cases. However, it is the coercive
 elements of the technique that present the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice
(Moore, Copeland and Schuller, 2009.)

9. Recommendations to improve the operations

I. It is suggested that before the commencement of the operation, a
detailed report of the suspect must be compiled. This report would
delve deeper and unpack the target's vulnerabilities of mental health
concerns, financial dependencies, education and social life (Smith
and Stinson, 2012.) This report will reveal an analysis of any aspects
that may render a confession unreliable or determine whether they
would be more susceptible to inducements than the average person
(Bateman, 2017.) This report would be given to an independent
governing body. They would assess these factors and determine
whether the suspect is fit for exposure to the process. 
II. It is recommended that these operations are not permitted to be
conducted on individuals aged under 25. Research showcases that
young people are more suggestible and are more vulnerable to
coercive circumstances (Redlich and Goodman, 2003; Scott-
Hayward, 2007.) Younger people are cognitively and psychosocially
less mature than adults. This leads to their impulsive decision
making and a lessened ability to consider consequences which can
result in them falsely confessing (Kassin, Drizin and Grisso, 2009.)
By putting this restriction in place, it will most likely reduce the
number of individuals falsely confessing. Thus, minimising the risk
of a miscarriage of justice. 
III. It is recommended that if Mr Big evidence is produced in a trial, it
must always be coupled with individual confirmatory evidence to
support findings found within the operation (Moore, Copeland and
Schuller, 2009.) This is an attempt to increase the standard of
reliance on Mr Big evidence. Using Mr Big Operation findings more
tentatively and not allowing them to be valid evidence in a trial
 without the presence of corroborating evidence is crucial. What is
recommended is that Mr Big evidence will not be admissible without
being supported by evidence found independently of the Mr Big
Operation. 

10.Recommendations for the prohibition of operations

I. It is recommended that an inquiry occurs into the Mr Big Operation
by an independent body. The investigation into the operation would
evaluate both the advantages and disadvantages, accompanied by
evidence of witnesses to determine whether these operations are fit
for practice.
II. An oversight body should be established to preside over the
operations. This body would oversee the tactics used in the Mr Big
Operations as they unfold. It would hold teams to account if they are
breaching rules. If the body decides that a rule has been breached
during the investigation, the operation must cease immediately. This
is recommended to increase accountability measures of Mr Big
Operations.
 11.References List 
Articles
Bateman, J. (2017). A Catalyst for Change? A systems analysis of the New Admissibility

Test Developed in R v Hart [2014]. University of Ottawa, 6-

130. https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/36439

Blais, C. (2002). A Critical Assessment of Mr Big Operations by Canada's Police. Mount

Royal University, 2-73. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/322804807.pdf

Cloutier-Lada, S. (n.d.). Factors related to false confessions: Mental illness and previous

criminal involvement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1-

78. https://www.proquest.com/docview/865836440/abstract/758B1B78BD914BA0PQ

/1?accountid=13552

Connors, C. (2016). The Mr. Big Technique on Trial by Jury: Impressions of Defendant

Character, Confession Evaluations, and Verdicts. Saint Mary's University Halifax, 7-

85. https://library2.smu.ca/handle/01/26626

Connors, C., Patry, M., & Smith, S. (2019). The Mr. Big technique on trial by

jury. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(1), 1-

22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2018.1483507
Dufraimont, L. (2015). Hart and Mack: New Restraints on Mr Big and a New Approach to

Unreliable Prosecution Evidence. The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode's Annual

Constitutional Cases Conference, 71, 476-

500. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/98191/1/MacKinnon_Alastair_

D_201911_LLM_thesis.pdf

East, M. (2017). A Free Licence: The Lack of External Checks on Police Undercover

Operations. The University of Otago, 1-

45. https://www.otago.ac.nz/law/research/journals/otago719258.pdf

Glazebrooke, S. (2016). Mr Big Operations: Innovative Investigative Technique or Threat to

Justice? Judicial Colloquium, 1-

28. https://www.hkcfa.hk/filemanager/speech/en/upload/152/Mr%20Big

%20Operations%20-%20Innovative%20Investigative%20Technique%20or

%20Threat%20to%20Justice.pdf
Gudjonsson, G., Sigurdsson, J., Sigfusdottir, I., Asgeirsdottir, B., González, R., & Young, S.

(2015). A national epidemiological study investigating risk factors for police

interrogation and false confession among juveniles and young persons. Social

Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 51(3), 359-

367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-015-1145-8

Jochelson, R. (2019). Injustice in Criminal Process: Legal and Socio-Legal

Approaches. SSRN Electronic Journal, 42(4), 249-

427. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3451531

Kassin, S., Drizin, S., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G., Leo, R., & Redlich, A. (2009). Police-

induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human

Behavior, 34(1), 3-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6
Luther, K., & Snook, B. (2015). Putting the Mr. Big technique back on trial: A re-

examination of probative value and abuse of process through a scientific lens. Journal

of Forensic Practice, 18(2), 131-142. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfp-01-2015-0004

Luther, K., & Snook, B. (2016). Putting the Mr. Big technique back on trial: A re-

examination of probative value and abuse of process through a scientific lens. Journal

of Forensic Practice, 18(2), 131-142. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfp-01-2015-0004

MacKinnon, A. (2019). “Mr. Big” Confessions, R v Hart, and a Proposal for a New Right of

Appeal based upon Fundamental Post-Conviction Changes to the Law. University of

Toronto, 1-

44. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/98191/1/MacKinnon_Alastair_D

_201911_LLM_thesis.pdf

Milward, D. (2013). Opposing Mr Big Principle. University of British Columbia Law

Review. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Opposing+Mr.+Big+in+principle-

a0337816320

Moore, T., Copeland, P., & Schuller, R. (2009). Deceit, betrayal and the search for truth:

Legal and Psychological perspectives on the Mr Big strategy. Criminal Law

Quarterly, 55(3), 349-

403. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255686861_Deceit_betrayal_and_the_s

earch_for_truth_Legal_and_psychological_perspectives_on_the_'Mr_Big'_strategy

Moore, T., & Keenan, K. (2010). Lying for the truth: Do 'Mr Big' tactics generate reliable

admissions? International Investigative Interviewing Research Group, 45-

56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255686862_Lying_for_the_truth_Do_'

Mr_Big'_tactics_generate_reliable_admissions

Phelan, N. (2019). Importing a Canadian Creation: A Comparative Analysis of Evidentiary

Rules Governing the Admissibility of Confessions to 'Mr. Big'. Manitoba Law

 Journal, 42(3), 385-

426. https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/themanitobalawjournal/index.php/mlj/article/v

iew/1120

Puddister, K. (2010). The RCMP's Mr Big: An Independence and Accountability Case

Study. The University of Guelph, 1-

113. https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/23214/Puddister_K

ate_MA.pdf?sequence=1

Redlich, A., & Goodman, G. (2003). Taking responsibility for an act not committed: The

influence of age and suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior, 27(2), 141-

156. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022543012851

Scott-Hayward, C. (2007). Explaining Juvenile False Confessions: Adolescent Development

and Police Interrogation. Law & Psychology Review, 31, 1-

24. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1802884

Smith, S., & Stinson, V. (2009). Using the Mr Big Technique to Elicit Confessions:

Successful Innovation or Dangerous Development in the Canadian Legal

System. American Psychological Association, 15(3), 168-

193. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016962

Smith, S., & Stinson, V. (2010). Confession evidence in Canada: psychological issues and

legal landscapes. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(3), 317-

333. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.486380

Documentaries/Videos
Atif Rafay and Sebastian Burns: Are they the killers of the Rafay family? – ZUROCK

(YouTube)

Daniel Morcombe: Tracking his killer – 60 Minutes (YouTube)

Mayerthorpe RCMP Killings: Bad Day at Barhead – The Fifth Estate (YouTube)
Meika Jordan, the broken princess – Crime Beat (YouTube)

Mr Big – Tiffany Burns (IMDB)

Mr Big Stings: Cops, Criminals and Confessions – The Fifth Estate (YouTube)

Someone Got Away with Murder: Andy Rose – The Fifth Estate (YouTube)

The Confession Tapes [episode 1 & 2] – Kelly Loundenberg (Netflix)

Podcasts
Mr Big – The Pit (Apple Podcasts)

Mr Big Sting – Cold Case Files (Apple Podcasts)

Mr Big: An inside story of a botched undercover operation – The Daily Dive (Apple

Podcasts)

Murder that rocked Barrie – Beyond the Rainbow podcast (Google Podcasts)

Nelson Hart & Mr Big Technique (Google Podcasts)

The Rafay family murders, False confessions and the Mr Big technique – Case Cache

(Google Podcasts)

The Rafay Family-Murders of the Confession tapes – Real Crime Profile (Apple Podcasts)

The Sting – Catching Daniel Morcombe’s Killer – Australian True Crime (Apple Podcasts)

Websites
Bevin, E. (2014, August 23). Questions over police tactic in Standage murder case. ABC

(Australian Broadcasting Corporation). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-

23/questions-raised-over-mr-big-tactic-used-in-standage-conviction/5691538

Cowley, J. (2021, July 21). Mr. Big sting operations - The aftermath of R vs Hart - Derstine

Penman. Derstine Penman: Criminal Lawyers. https://derstinepenman.com/mr-big-

sting-operations/
New Zealand Law Society. (2016, June 23). "Mr Big" Operations Receive Judicial

Support. https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/news/legal-news/mr-big-operations-receive-

judicial-support/

Power, J. (2021, January 10). Did a bogus Mr big leave an Australian murder conviction

fatally flawed? South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/week-

asia/politics/article/3116936/did-canadian-technique-police-sting-and-bogus-mr-big-

leave

Puddister, K. (2018, March 13). Police investigation in Tina Fontaine's murder: Rethinking

the Mr. Big method. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/police-

investigation-in-tina-fontaines-murder-rethinking-the-mr-big-method-92792

Stobbe, M. (2021, September 25). They said the controversial ‘Mr. Big’ sting wouldn’t last,

if only for reasons of publicity. Here’s why they were wrong. Toronto

Star. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/09/25/they-said-the-controversial-

mr-big-sting-wouldnt-last-if-only-for-reasons-of-publicity-heres-why-they-were-

wrong.html