Note to readers: Guest columnist Sherry Baxter practices criminal and civil law on Vancouver Island, as well as provides legal research and litigation services.

When you think “undercover”, it conjures images of Hollywood dramas where police officers pose as criminals and infiltrate gangs to gather evidence against them. Many of the classics are based on true undercover stories.

In Canada, however, the real life police approach to “undercover” has been turned inside out with what are known as “Mr. Big” operations. These are not the stereotypical Hollywood undercover scenarios. In a Mr. Big operation, the suspect is the only one not involved in the deception. He is the only one not aware that all of the “criminals” he is associating with are actually police officers. The operations cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each. The main characters include the “target”, the “primary operator”, and “Mr. Big”. The target is the suspect with whom the police are seeking to extract a confession. The primary operator is the officer who pursues the target and helps him “join” the gang. Mr. Big is the “boss”, and eventually interrogates the target about the crime, pressures the target to be “honest” about it, to confess, and to provide details. The assumed consequences of failing to follow through are usually devastating to the target.

Mr. Big operations offer a troubling example of coercive techniques that guarantee false confessions. The country’s highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada, has put safeguards in place by requiring the police and prosecution to prove that a confession is likely reliable. That is, that the confession is probably reliable because corroborating evidence is present, or the confession is internally consistent. Despite these safeguards, Mr. Big operations pose too great a risk for wrongful convictions. Here’s why.

The deceit is elaborate. Supporting officers act out scenarios that include violent beatings for dishonesty, or they accompany the target on fake gang “jobs” that include tasks like delivering packages or vehicles, counting money, and standing guard. The gang pays for extravagant expenses. The target is paid substantially well, up to tens of thousands of dollars in some cases, with the promise of more to come. One of the significant incentives to confessing to the crime is an assurance from the gang that they will help the target sue for damages because he was falsely imprisoned, a large portion of which he gets to keep.

It bears emphasis that the one and only objective of the entire operation, which occurs over many months, is to secure a confession from the target for the crime they think he committed. The goal is not to investigate whether he did it, but to get him to confess to it. This is a very troubling premise, and is the result of tunnel vision, which has been proven to result in wrongful convictions. In doing so, they manipulate the target by making him believe the primary operator is in trouble with the boss for having recruited a liar if the target maintains innocence. They provide incentives such as money and camaraderie, a lavish lifestyle, and take advantage of any vulnerabilities the target may possess. There are also the subtle coercive tactics such as the threat of bodily harm.

In one case, the target’s two daughters had drowned. The police suspected their father had murdered them but had no evidence against him. When they sought to recruit him, the father was unemployed and socially isolated. The gang offered social connections, and he came to view many of the undercover officers as “brothers”. The large sums of money they paid him helped alleviate his financial problems. In the end, the gang had lifted him from his troubles and gave him a sense of belonging. The operation took advantage of his vulnerabilities, his financial situation and his social isolation. It is of no surprise that when he was confronted by the boss about having drowned his daughters, and faced the risk of being kicked out of the gang, or worse, there was a significant risk he would have confessed to the crime even if he had not committed it.

In another case, the target was recruited and later confronted by Mr. Big. He was told there was new science that proved he had murdered his girlfriend’s three-year-old son, who had suffered a fatal head injury. The target was told that the gang had observed the science first hand because they had “insiders” in the police. Mr. Big assured him he would be arrested, and guaranteed he would be convicted because of the “new science”, unless he confessed. If he did confess, he was told, the gang would arrange for someone else to take the blame.

Another Mr. Big operation resulted in two men confessing to the same crime, when only one of them could have been responsible for it. One of the two confessions was clearly false. They were both tried for murder and both were convicted. In yet another case, the target had faced charges for the second degree murder of a 14 year old girl, but they had been stayed before trial. The police pursued him with a Mr. Big operation. When he was confronted by Mr. Big, he denied involvement. He was told the primary operator was in trouble with the boss for recruiting a liar. The target was assured that if he confessed, a man dying of cancer would take the blame and serve the jail sentence.

Another troubling consequence of Mr. Big operations is the prejudice formed against the target because of the fact he was willing to commit crimes as part of a criminal organization. Even if his confession is not believed at trial, the accused faces the additional risk that he will be considered the type of person who would commit a crime, and is more likely to be wrongfully convicted. These risks associated with tunnel vision, false confessions, and as a consequence, wrongful convictions, provide compelling reasons why Mr. Big operations should not be used when investigating crimes.