 We're going to give it a couple of seconds everyone for people to come in and then we're going to get started. Okay, so we're going to get started. I think people are going to trickle in, but that's okay. I'm going to start with the intro to our event. Welcome everyone. This is a new seminar in our criminal justice speaker series hosted by the criminal justice coalition at the truly school of law at the house university. I am Madeline I'm a criminal law professor here at the law school, and I'm going to be the host for today's event. Today we have with us, Mr. Pat McEwen, who is a trial lawyer here in in Halifax and a graduate of truly law. Is that true? True. Yes, there we go. I cannot emphasize that enough. And he is now practicing at McEwen McGygan and Giacomo Antonio. Mr. McEwen is going to take us into the world of undercover operations and into the challenges of defending somebody who has confessed to a crime during a Mr. Big Sting. Now you're going to get an overview of what those undercover operations are during during the talk. I will just note for those of you who don't know that until 2014 the confessions obtained through a Mr. Big undercover operations were automatically admitted at trial, because there was no regulation, no legislation regulating their admission at the time. Now in 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada created what we now call the heart framework, which basically says that the Mr. Big obtained confessions are considered generally inadmissible, unless the crown can prove that they are reliable and they haven't been obtained through abuse of process by the police. Now, since 2014, the heart framework has actually been used quite a bit. It has been used in over 60 cases. And a study that I've conducted with my former student Vanessa Kinnear shows that basically the confessions were admitted in the vast majority of cases. The confessions were excluded only in five cases. So the impact of heart was negligible in this area of law. However, the interesting thing is that in two out of the five cases in which the confessions were excluded and as a result the accused was acquitted. Mr. McEwen was the lawyer. So Mr. McEwen has quite a bit of experience with Mr. Big operations and defending the target. So we are very lucky to have him here with us tonight. Before I provide an introduction to Mr. McEwen, I just want to note that you have at the bottom of the screen, you have a Q&A box and I would like to invite you to use it to ask questions there and I can fill them and ask them to Mr. McEwen at the end of the talk. Now, that was called to the Nova Scotia in 2004. So again, after graduating from Shulik Law, his focus is on criminal defense, criminal code, control drugs and substances act and regulatory offenses. Beth has practiced all facets of criminal law and has been involved in a number of high profile cases in Nova Scotia, including numerous murder trials. He has also presented as a variety of criminal law conferences. He's a member of the Nova Scotia Criminal Lawyers Association and he has appeared in all levels of courts in Nova Scotia, as well as provincial courts in New Brunswick and Newfoundland. So with that, I am going to turn that to you Pat. Welcome and thank you so much again for being here. Thank you. Okay. So yes, as Alina has indicated, I am here to speak on the use of the Mr. Big undercover technique in criminal matters. One particular defending individuals who have confessed to an offense after being the subject of Mr. Big investigation. I have had an opportunity as she has mentioned to represent a number of individuals who have been the target of undercover investigations, and one in particular that I will speak about in some detail, who was subject to a lengthy Mr. Big operation. As Alina has outlined fairly clearly what a Mr. Big operation is, but despite that there seems to be some confusion with respect to the definition of what a Mr. Big is or what the Mr. Big technique is. And as we will discuss a little bit later on, the definition does matter. And as mentioned, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed these types of operations and it's 2014 decision and the Queen versus heart, it defined a Mr. Big operation as follows my and I will quote a Mr. Big operation begins with undercover opera officers luring their suspect into a fictitious criminal organization of their own making. In several weeks or months, the suspect is befriended by the undercover officers. He has shown that working with the organization provides a pathway to financial rewards and close friendships. There is only one catch the crime boss, known as Mr. Big, must approve the suspect's membership in the criminal organization. The operation culminates with an interview like meeting between the suspect and Mr. Big. In the interview Mr. Big brings up the crime police are investigating and questions the suspect about it denials of guilt or dismissed and Mr. Big presses the suspect for confession. As Mr. Big's questioning continues it becomes clear to the suspect that by confessing to the crime, the big prize acceptance into the organization awaits. But it does confess fiction soon unravels and the suspect is arrested and charged. So that's the definition of a Mr. Big operation which is at one beginning of the heart decision and that's a majority decision written by Justice Muldaver. And as a defense lawyer and operation of this nature does cause fairly significant amount of concern and create several challenges and in particular if your client indicates that they have confessed. To an offense they did not in fact commit. So as previously mentioned prior to the heart decision there was really very little as far as constraints on the police and how they were to operate in these undercover operations. It was designed in a such a way that it made it very very difficult to challenge the operation itself or the evidence that was obtained through the use of a Mr. Big investigation. Lawyers tried in many ways to object to the miscibility of evidence that was obtained through Mr. Big confessions and for the most part I think but for one, they were unsuccessful. The reason for that is that the standard ways in which lawyers were generally challenged these confessions or challenge confessions to police officers did not apply. So for instance the principle of voluntariness did not apply as the police officers were not objectively police officers they were posing as criminals and as such did not appear to be persons in authority. Therefore the confession rule did not apply with respect to challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The individuals were not detained by the police and as such were not entitled to be advised of the right to silence they are not entitled to be advised of their right against self-imprimination. So there was certainly a void with respect to a way in which to attack these operations. Therefore in 2014. There was very little to prevent the police from using these techniques or up to 2014 and for the most part they use them as often as they could because frankly they had quite a bit of success. There obviously are concerns anytime your client confesses to a crime, especially a very serious crime. There's even further concerns when your client confesses to a very serious crime to an undercover operator. On top of the obvious problem being that so there's a confession that you have to deal with in front of a jury and confessions are very powerful evidence. There is the issue is with respect to how the operation itself is conducted. So I do have a biased view of this, but as you've already heard this technique is often used only in the most serious offenses that are being investigated. Generally speaking, it's predominantly murders that are being investigated when this technique is used. When these techniques are being used it's often because not only is the suspect a suspect to the police, but they may very well be a suspect within the community. And, for instance, Mr. Hart, who is the applicant in the Supreme Court kind of decision was accused of murdering his three year old twin girls so obviously a very significant offense. And with respect to my former client Mr. Buckley who I'll talk about a little more further on in this in this talk, he was accused of murdering his own mother. These two individuals were not only suspects to the police but they were suspected by various members of the community which had the effect of isolating them socially not only from various friends and family, but from employers and so on and so forth within their community. And, as these individuals become more alienated this is a vulnerability that the police are able to successfully exploit. So, for instance, in both of the heart, Mr. Big Investigation and Mr. Buckley's investigation as well the police targeted both their loneliness. With respect to friends in the community and supports, as well as their financial vulnerabilities. The police are very well aware of who their targets are prior to the operation ever taking place. Oftentimes targets are subjected to surveillance for a period of time, profiles are prepared, and it's determined how best to approach these individuals. In the course of the investigation, targets often are introduced to various members of the criminal organization of course are police officers, and they are introduced to what's often referred to as a family close friends support structure that they do enjoy they are the camaraderie of being around these these other individuals. And this becomes very important. In addition, as I mentioned, most of these targets that I've researched were financially vulnerable with respect to Mr. Buckley the individual I represented the police approached him, while he was at the place of collecting his check they knew that he would be there on a specific date and provided him information on the job fair information was provided by an attractive young woman who they felt was an individual they would have some success with. And then, as time progresses, not just Mr. Buckley but many of these individuals they're introduced to a relatively lavish lifestyle they are shown. And eventually they're they're go to nice restaurants they stay in nice hotels they travel across the country. They're they're shown a lifestyle that, frankly, they would otherwise not have access to. So they're provided not only with a sense of camaraderie and community but they're provided with a sense of financial stability. As Alina had previously mentioned at once. These targets feel very comfortable. They're fully immersed in this organization so to speak. They're asked to confess to the crime that's being investigated. The way that approach is different in essentially every case but they're told that if they confess they continue to enjoy the high life, if not, they will be forgotten or worse. As most people can see the incentives for providing a confession, truthful or not, are quite high. And that's how they're designed. These types of incentives are exactly what the principle of voluntariness and a confession's role were created to prevent when individuals who are known to be police officers. If they were to provide these types of incentives for a confession. They wouldn't get very far but because these officers are posing as organized crime members, the same rules don't apply. If all of that is not enough to create some concerns surrounding the use of the Mr. Big technique. Think of this. Should your client wish to testify trial that they provided a false confession, they would be doing so in front of a jury. And they no doubt will have to answer questions about the surrounding circumstances involving their confession. And in doing so they would have to readily admit that not only were they prepared to enter into a criminal organization and commit various crimes at the behest of that criminal organization that they wish they would also have to testify that they wish to remain within that criminal organization so badly that they were prepared to confess to things they did not do in order to remain a member of a criminal organization. Obviously that paints your client in a fairly poor light as the investigation is unfolding oftentimes these individuals are asked to participate in what they believe are crimes, fake crimes or stage crimes. But what they believe are crimes in these instances would provide a ground prosecutor significant amount of ammunition for cross examination. So, once your client has testified that he wanted to be a member of a criminal organization and concedes that he committed various crimes in order to ingratiate himself with gangsters or organized criminals. It's very likely that the jury will find that your client is the type of person who is capable of committing very serious criminal acts. Obviously that creates a bias within could create a bias with various jurors and it's also very very concerning. It was culminated in 2014 when the Supreme Court of Canada heard her had to make a decision with respect to how or if these types of Mr big operations would be able to continue. Essentially the court had three choices one that could allow the police to continue operating Mr big techniques without any real constraints. Secondly, they could prevent the use of evidence that is obtained through a Mr big operation, or third, they could place some limitations on a Mr big operation and provide guidance to the course on whether or not to accept evidence, which is obtained during the course of a. Mr big sting. And as, as we've heard the court decided to offer the third option which was providing some guidance with respect to how this evidence and how these techniques are to be, are to be used. And what essentially, or what the outcome was was that the course adopted a two pronged analysis with respect to how Mr big operations were to be viewed by the course. In this paragraph 8586 of the decision just a small day run out quote again states as follows. The first program recognizes a new common law rule of evidence for assessing the admissibility of these confessions. The rule operates as follows, where the state recruits and accused into an infectious criminal organization of its own making and seeks to elicit a confession from him. Any confession made by the accused to the state during the operation should be treated as presumptively inadmissible. The presumption of inadmissibility is overcome where the crown can establish on a balance of probabilities that the probative value of the confession outweighs its prejudicial effect. In this context, the confessions probative value turns on an assessment of its reliability. Its prejudicial effect flows from the bad character evidence that must be admitted in order to put the operation and confession in context. In this unable to demonstrate the accused confession is admissible the rest of the evidence surrounding Mr big operation becomes irrelevant and thus inadmissible. This rule like the confessions rule. In this case, in the case of a conventional police interrogation operates as a specific qualification to the party admissions exception to the hearsay rule. As regard the second prong I would rely on the doctrine of abusive process to deal with the problem of police misconduct. The doctrine has thus far provided less than effective has proved less than effective in this context, while the problem is not an easy one I propose to provide some guidance on how to determine if a Mr big operation crosses the line from skillful police work to an abusive process. Now, with respect to the first prong that of reliability there's some fairly clear guidance. With respect to the concept of abusive process. The analysis is I would suggest as far less clear paragraph 115 just from all day restates. Mr big operations are designed to induce confessions the mere presence of inducements is not problematic. But please conduct including inducements and threats becomes problematic in the context when it approximates coercion. The police operations the police cannot be permitted to overcome the will of the accused and coerced confection, this would almost certainly amount to an abusive process. So the question is where does where does that leave us. And as you've heard, and I have not checked at Linda's numbers I'm sure that they're correct is that for the most part these operations are still being conducted. From what I gather is that the evidence is still being admitted before courts. So, while there has been some guidance with respect to how to analyze these these confessions and this guidance is for lower courts and trial courts. The other effect is that it's allowed the police to ensure that operations that they conduct are more likely to obtain admissible evidence. I'll provide an example and that is, as I mentioned a client of mine by the John Buckley. The decisions involving Mr Buckley are currently available they are reported decisions. I represented Mr Buckley in both 2013 and 2018. With respect to the same matter in 2012. Ms Victoria bronze but he was found deceased in her home. She had been living there with her son john. Mr Buckley on the night of March 1 2012 he left the family home snowstorm to go and buy a pack of cigarettes he was captured on close circuit cameras throughout his town and did in fact go and buy a pack of cigarettes. When he returned, he found his mother a pool of blood on the floor. He determined very quickly that that she was in fact deceased. And according to him freaked out and didn't know what to do. He sat in another room in the house for hours and waited until dawn, at which time he walked a number of kilometers to his sister's home. Mr Buckley was in fact dead. The police were called and they found that Ms bronze Buckley had been bludgeoned to death by an unknown object. The murder weapon was never found and autopsy was conducted, and it was found that she had been struck approximately eight times, at least eight times by an item, while unknown was consistent with a hammer. Mr Buckley was about two weeks after arrested and charged with the murder of his mother. He found that it was very little evidence to support the allegation that he was in fact involved. A preliminary inquiry was scheduled for December of that year, and very shortly before that preliminary inquiry. The crown withdrew the charges against Mr Buckley, he had been released. Mr Buckley said during the time that he was in custody awaiting his preliminary inquiry he had been provided a copy of all of the evidence that the crown had in its file which include crime scene photos autopsy reports, forensic reports, statements and so on and so forth. Upon his release. He was essentially an outcast in his community, people treat him as though he were murder and that he killed his mother. Eventually, he moved around a little bit and settled in Montreal, where he began to work a number of low paying jobs. In October of 2015, the police decided that they would reinvestigate they considered this to be a cold case, and that they would prepare a Mr big investigation for Mr Buckley. He was a subject of surveillance for a significant period of time. And in October of 2015, the, as I mentioned previously approached him at the unemployment office he was there to pick up his employment or EI check his employment insurance check, and was approached by an attractive undercover police officer who provides him with a flyer for something that similar to a job fair, they indicated that they had been quite successful in the past at getting jobs for individuals who were in need of employment. Mr Buckley did attend for that interview and was placed with a company working out of a warehouse. He started at a rate of $20 an hour which at that point in Mr Buckley's life with the most he had ever made. I should point out Mr Buckley wasn't quite a young man at the time. He worked in a warehouse for a number of weeks and as time went on he was asked to assist in deliveries of various products. While he was making these deliveries, it was implied that the company was working for was also part of a criminal organization. The most part throughout the course of this operation which did last a period of six months. Mr Buckley was spending most of his time with one particular operator. Name is subject to a publication ban, but he spent approximately 700 hours with that individual over the course of six months. And during that time Mr Buckley was treated to travel across Canada he stayed in hotels he ate a nice restaurants. He was taken to nightclubs was exposed to large amounts of cash, hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash at a time sometimes was entrusted with amounts of bulk gold was treated to experience such as attending a Montreal Canadians game was provided with a game Jersey. All of these things are things that Mr Buckley never would have been able to experience, but for his recruitment into the criminal organization. As time went on he was asked to participate in a number of feigned criminal enterprises although that was unknown to him. Examples of these were the theft of a laptop from an RCMP undercover car and a stage interrogation and borderline kidnapping of an RCMP officer. As the investigation came to its apex, he was told by the boss that some information had come to light about Mr Buckley's problems in Nova Scotia, involving the death of his mother. The boss told him that his, his information was at the RCMP had reinvestigated the case and that's Mr Buckley was soon going to be re arrested in charge of the murder of his mother. The boss came up with a solution and that was that there was an individual in Quebec jail who owed the organization a significant amount of money was prepared to falsely confess to the death of Mr Buckley's mother. The only way this was going to work of course is that if Mr Buckley provided all of the details in regards to the killing of his mother. So the fall guide would know the details and get them right in his confessions. Mr Buckley just sat down for an interview and was told that the organization knew he was involved, they needed him to confess and they need to provide all the details. Mr Buckley denied his involvement. He was told time and time again that if he did not confess, the organization could not help him. He would also be ejected from the organization they would have to turn his back their backs on him as he would create too much heat on the organization and police oversight. If he confessed, however, he would no longer have to worry about the police investigating him in Nova Scotia, he continued to advance through the ranks of the criminal organization and enjoy the lifestyle that provided. Mr Buckley told Mr big that he knew all of the details of his mother's murder as he had been provided a copy of the police file years earlier. He was the one who found the body and lived in the home so it was very little that could possibly be known that he didn't already know and once again asserted his innocence. Once again Mr big indicated that's, that was not acceptable Mr Buckley had to confess to the events and provide detailed explanation as to what occurred. Eventually Mr Buckley did confess. He said that he struck his mother three times with a hammer in order to collect her insurance. Shortly thereafter he was returned to Nova Scotia arrested and charged. This of course was years after the hard decision. The police were very well aware of her and its implications. And as you can see, very little difference in the way the operation was conducted. In this particular case, Mr Buckley did not provide any information that would not have been known to him, or myself for that matter. Mr Buckley did provide a statement to the police after his arrest of water was held in relation to Mr Buckley for a number of believe it was weeks of evidence. The court found that the confession is not such a reliable nature that it's probative value awaited its prejudicial effect, and it was excluded as evidence. Mr Buckley's charges were then dismissed. So in this case Mr Buckley did benefit from the analysis in her, it would have been very difficult to challenge the confession prior to the heart decision. That being said, he was exposed to the technique itself and was held in custody for significant period of time prior to being released. Granted the police did not feign any significant violence or threaten him in any way. The trial officers indicated that post harsh they had been directed not to do so. They've been told to use less violence and less overt threats and use more psychological interference. They were also told to collect confirmatory evidence when possible to improve upon the reliability of any confessions. These are some of the things and they can certainly go to level playing field to some degree, but the Supreme Court of Canada's decision has not put a halt to the exploitation of accused people or their vulnerabilities at the hands of the police. Furthermore, one undercover operator candidly told the court on cross examination that his group was focusing on shortening the length of their operations and relying less on the organization aspect of the Mr big operations. To prevent the definition of Mr big, therefore possibly avoiding the onus and post upon the crowd. It is also important to keep in mind that post her while the onus is on the crown to establish the reliability of a confession. And accused wish to challenge the manner in which the operation was conducted by way of an abusive process that onus still lies upon the accused in his counsel, his or her counsel. This may require an accused to testify prior to the trial proper in his own defense and be subject to cross examination. This can be an issue and it's something that people should keep in mind should they wish to challenge an operation based on abusive process. The issue of abuse process came up another matter which I was involved in it was a queen versus derbyshire. This was not found to be a Mr big operation but wasn't undercover operation where members of the RCMP posed as members of organized crime. There was thought to have some information regarding the whereabouts of a suspected murderer, the RCMP investigated her at length and listened to her phone via intercepts. They were unable to, to receive any useful information. Through those avenues. So the police crafted an undercover plan that involved approaching Mr. Bishire parked outside of her apartment building entered her underground parking garage when she came home one afternoon. By herself in her car in the dark poorly lit underground parking garage as she exited her vehicle to large men dressed as what she described as high end gangsters approached her demanded that she get back in her vehicle. One of the two officers entered the vehicle on the passenger side while the other blocked her exit on the driver side. She was told that they were here from Montreal, because the murder that had taken place had affected their business and they were not very happy. They needed to know what if anything she knew, and she was told that they meant business. It was conceited understand that they spoke to her in a very direct and threatening manner if not actually threatening her. She very quickly told the police what she knew she said that she was involved in, in disposing of the murder weapon as well as some evidence. They asked her where the murder weapon was and she indicated that the murder weapon was thrown in a river in Moncton. Very shortly after that, the police told her that she was going to cancel everything she has on her schedule that day and accompany them to Moncton. She was placed in the back of a SUV with tinted windows. The police took control of her phone and drove her to Moncton where she described where the firearm was found. She also showed them a burned site where some evidence had been destroyed after the homicide. Upon returning home, the police dropped her off and after discovering all the evidence that she pointed out she was arrested in charge of the accessory after the fact to murder. This was not a lengthy investigation. Mr. Bechier was not being recruited in any way shape or form. But most people can see that there are some parallels with respect to this and a Mr. Big investigation. This occurred prior to 2014 and after the vaudeer for Mr. Bechier had a journey for decision the heart decision was released. I certainly tried to apply the two pronged analysis from her to Mr. Derbyshire situation. And while the court found that the first prong of the of the heart approach was not applicable to Mr. Bechier. She relied upon the abuse of process. Second prong of the heart analysis in excluding her evidence they found that she had essentially been threatened, and that's her statements to the police were in fact coerced. The evidence was excluded charges against her were dismissed and that was upheld by our court of appeal, and the application for leave by the crown was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada. So, while the release of heart has made Mr. Big operations somewhat more reliable and somewhat less coercive coercive in nature, it certainly has not prevented the use of Mr. Big operations by the police. And at this point in time, it's very difficult to say how often the police are using these operations as we only appear both the ones which are successful obtaining confession so it's very difficult to ascertain how often these operations are successful, and how often they are not. So if you have any questions that everyone has those are the comments that I have. Thank you very much, but it's, I knew both of those cases and still it because it's fascinating when, when I hear the details of the operations. We do have one question in the comments I have some questions as well and I do want to encourage people to use the q amp a box and and that their questions there. So the first question. See here. It seems that the psychological interference as you put it is as bad if not worse for manipulating people into confessions. Is there any room in such cases to bring in an expert witness such as forensic psychologist to speak to this to the court. I would that would certainly be possible under the second branch of the heart analysis to establish that there was in fact an abuse and that the psychological, the psychological coercion is tantamount to physical threats. It would be possible in the in the in the right circumstances in her that was done to some degree, experts were brought in to establish that he was socially isolated and was certainly prone to police coercion. Okay, another question here. Where, where this, this audience member is in Australia has Mr. Australia also has Mr big things. However, our courts are extremely resistant to reforming Mr big, what can be done. So I missed part of that question. In Australia, there are Mr big things in Australia as well however they do not have any kind of comparable framework as as hard right. So, this person asked what can be done. How can they, I would imagine how can it be a challenge how can it be reform without any intervention from courts. Yeah, without any intervention from courts I think it's it's nearly impossible. There's some type of legislative reform or judicial reform. I mean the police have significant amount of resources. I'm not familiar with the Australian Charter and what their rights are precisely and what their rules of evidence are, but it certainly prove very very difficult here in Canada and a lot of lawyers tried to attack Mr big operations and all but one were unsuccessful and doing so. We have another question here that asked. If you think there is a better way to investigate these kinds of cases then pretending to be a criminal organization I think so. Let me let me rephrase this. You know, in, in a manner coincide to what I was thinking. So, I think a lot of times the explanation that we get for, or why Canada is so attached to this organization is that generally these. These are launched for very serious cases like murder right, where there are absolutely no, you're not going to see this for a simple assault right. And they are very very serious, serious cases where there isn't a lot of evidence but the police has a very strong suspicion as to who they think the accused is so I think the question would be, you know, what would you say to that the police would say you know this is our last resort we do have another way of investigating this. That means we will let you know the killer walk and, and what kind of justice is that so I think. I think this is the argument that they are raising and that and the fact that they are very effective in that in that they do result in confessions and then if there is all in confession there is all in convictions so yeah I would think that we could think of that question this way. Yeah, I mean they do result in confessions and post her those confessions are going to be even more reliable and juries are going to put a lot more weight in those confessions so if you look at Miss Derbyshire for instance she confessed. And she provided physical evidence that nobody else would have been able to find so you know there has to be some balance I would suggest we don't allow the police to do just anything they want to because it may it may close cases. Many jurisdictions do not allow this type of operation at all because they recognize that it's it's it's just right for police misconduct, the police are very well funded, and they are very well trained and it's it's a very unlevel playing So, when you look at as who these operations target, they're generally not the upper end criminal so to speak these aren't high level individuals, these are people who have vulnerabilities and those vulnerabilities are being exploited by the state. So I would like to see the use of the technique, prevented almost in its entirety. That being said that the general public like to see people convicted of the crimes that they believe they, they committed so yeah I don't know the answer that per se I would like to see it. I don't think it's prevented I don't think that's going to happen every time somebody's convicted of a murder that appears to be reliable in a strong conviction of the public's quite happy with that. So there's not much reason for elected officials who appoint most judicial appointments to to really make any waves. That's a great point. And it reminds me of a comment that my colleague Professor Archie Kaiser made when he said you know, when, when an operation when catching a killer requires the violation of so many rules and so many principles and so many values, perhaps it's better not to catch them at all. Because, because ultimately as you said, we're talking here about not only about a very significant concerns regarding reliability and regarding the fact that people do confess and wrong confess wrongly, but also ultimately we're talking about extremely inclusive police tactic tactics and exploitation of the most marginalized individuals in the end, as you noted and in the study that I conducted. Also, I think it was a significant number it was over 60% of the people that had an intersection of mental disorders disabilities. And other addictions generally addictions all those things on top of most of them if not all of them had very significant financial, they were destitute they had the history and unemployment and very low IQ. So there was an overlapping of intersecting issues that the police was targeting. So the thing is that police doesn't really use this operation to catch any criminal or to catch to solve crimes and they're worried about the victims because it seems that in these situations, the victim of smarter criminals will not get justice. Anyway, right because they wouldn't be this this tactic would not work. Rather, this tactic is really very strongly rooted in in exploiting disabilities and in exploiting significant issues that the targets are having and which outside of this context, we would never allow right or we would be a call to hear about. So somebody is asking in Buckley I believe the accused was quite young but legally an adult. Do you know if these operations happen to young people as well so people who would be under the youth act. No, I suspect that they would not be. The reason for that is that these operations are very, very expensive. And the end result would would not produce what the public, I think would expect so oftentimes young people who are charged with murder are charged as young people, their sentences are far far shorter than what an adult would expect. Also the rules surrounding confessions by young person are very different than an adult. So I suspect that if this technique were to be used on a young person and I'm not familiar with the case where it has been that it may be somebody very close to the age of adulthood. But I think that the youngest that I've seen was somebody who was 18. There were a couple in since 2014. There were a couple of people who are 18 at the time of the, at the time of the undercover operation. They were fairly brutal and it's very interesting because heart does very specifically say that the young age of the target should be considered against admitting the evidence because of their immaturity level because they are more easy to be influenced and manipulated. And yet in, in the cases that I reviewed the confession was admitted, even though in one of them. Not only he was 18 but he actually fell in love with the operator and they, he was hoping into having a love affair with the operator but that didn't seem to convince the court that there may be a reliability issue with that confession. Another question, which I think you would have sort of answered, or we would have answered is whether there are any patterns with what kind of people police are targeting with Mr. Big Stinks and do they exploit their target, target weaknesses. We sort of touched upon that. I don't know if you want to add anything. I haven't seen a target witness per se Mr. Bouchard would be the closest thing to a target witness. There was actually a very interesting article, or sorry, a matter before the court here in Halifax the individual they were looking for was arrested and charged with murder numerous years later. Someone had called Mr. Bouchard to testify against that individual. It was interesting because the that person's defense lawyer argued that evidence obtained from a witness from an abuse should not be admissible. Not only against that witness but against anybody that witness may testify against that argument was unsuccessful. Certainly does leave the door open for the police to use coercion against witnesses rather than accused in order to force them to testify it matters they don't want to testify to. Well, for those three says that's actually the RV Bradshaw. Well, it could be that in particular case is not every Bradshaw but whether or not it certainly leaves the door open if the witness is called to the stand and Mr. Bouchard had to testify in her own defense. I'm here to testify about her fear of the undercover operators. So the crown had a document that that they cross examine her on about her knowledge of the murder and the murder weapon. She did not want to be involved. She was fearful of pretty much everyone involved. And the court found that even though the information obtained by the crown was only obtained through an abusive process that it would be admissible in another person's trial. I think there be sure was a little different also because there was so much violence involved the very overt violence involved so probably the vulnerability of the target would have been less relevant at the moment where basically she's threatened with being beaten up. But I think the other weaknesses would probably matter in their decision of of targeting individuals, whether witnesses or or otherwise. Somebody's asking. Do you think a revamp of the confessions rule more generally would be necessary to further curtail Mr big operations. Is that realistic. The confessions rule changing anytime soon. There has been some very minor modifications and it held court levels with respect to voluntariness. That being said, it's, it's very difficult because if they were to change it in a way that's allowed the defense to argue that undercover operators were in fact a person's an authority then all undercover operations. Of every stripe would be prohibited under the confessions rule. So, I'm sure there could be some some tankering that could be done. But I don't see it happening. I have a couple more minutes and somebody wants to ask more questions feel free to type otherwise I'm just going to ask you this. And I think it's sort of came out of the discussion but I would, I would be really interested in your opinion on this issue. Well, a lot of people you know and perhaps from other jurisdictions consider that heart is is is progressive because it has imposed some limitation you yourself have said that it has led to being using less overt violence and let's read which of course. It is not bad. So it might have led what change in the way the undercover operations are are are going. It seems like a good step. It is an exclusionary rule now as you said it has changed the burden the burden is now on the crown at least for the reliability stage. Next then however, the cynic in me is asking has hard in fact led to legitimizing these operations and providing them a foundation and a strength that before that they perhaps didn't have because there was always something that they are just managing to exist because of the loopholes in the legislation. Now we have a legislation basically says you're legitimate is just that we're going to have to apply a framework whenever you try to bring the confession such obtained. I don't know if it was ever legitimate per se I don't think any court felt that Mr big was illegitimate I mean they time and time again allowed these confessions in despite some very appalling circumstances and Mr Buckley is is is the PG version of Mr big if I can say that compared to some of the things that took place for 2014. And prior to heart those individuals those confessions went in those individuals were convicted. While I see what you're saying I'm certainly happy that the Supreme Court of Canada decided to do something I mean it was certainly open to them to do nothing and leave the way it was. But I feel it was always been legitimized. The public is happy to have crime solves and there's no grounds well from from anyone other than potentially defense lawyers and individuals involved. So civil liberties to that are really opposed to this. Most members of the public are very happy to have bad guys off the street. So I think it's always been legitimate I think it's been curtailed to a limited degree, which I'm happy with, but I think the court could have done more. And I mean I take your point you know in real in relationship to Mr Buckley as you were saying you know, probably these. His confession would not have been thrown out right his confession would have probably gone in without the hard framework. And yet unfortunately does seem that at least Mr Buckley seems to be more of an exception, and I'm not really sure what it was about it there were definitely comparable cases where the evidence was not thrown out especially in some of the prairies jurisdictions which is quite interesting. So, so it does seem that overall hard had a pretty negligible impact actually in terms of these operations which is, which is surprising and unfortunate. So I'm not, I'm not, I'm not convinced on on on the long term impact that will continue to have on these operations, perhaps we'll see more in the years to come. Eventually, eventually everyone will know about us and it will be less useful at that point. I think we're all waiting for that to happen for everybody to read in the newspapers about that right, but as you and I were talking before this talk we all think that this will never happen to us right and we would be able to see it coming. So, perhaps it's not always so, so true. So somebody asked if there are, are juries given any kind of warning about evidence from Mr big operations, especially given how much weight these confessions carry. So, in the situation where they haven't been thrown out. Mr big confession get to a jury but that that being said, I would certainly be asking for some type of instruction. There are instructions given to juries about confessions in any event in that juries are not to put all of their eggs in that one basket. I think it would certainly be determined by the facts of a particular case for instance if McHugh took the stand and explain why he confessed, you know, falsely. Most judges would would provide some type of a limiting instruction with respect to how members of the jury were to weigh that evidence but that being said instructions from a judge, you know, confessions are very, very powerful. And as you said, especially in the context, let us not forget this is just not just the confession in which the guy sits next to the police officer and says yes I've done it. These are in the context in which this individual there is a lot of evidence of how he seemingly voluntarily joined the criminal organization and committed a lot of seem to be involved in sketchy activity, which of is not just character evidence but it's allowed because it's in the context of the, the operation so it's not just the confession but it's the confession and the background of this guy that clearly makes such a strong impact on on a jury with or without any kind of warning. Well, in post hard effect if I just interrupt for a second that the confessions are actually going to be much more powerful because the judges already made a determination that they're reliable confessions. So there's going to be indice of reliability which is also going to be left with the jury. So, while a judge will likely ask a jury to examine whether or not there are any confirmatory points of evidence. It's really already been determined by the judge that there are in that this is a reliable confession so I suspect that it would be much more difficult to argue that this is a false confession post hearts than it would have been pre heard going back to my initial question. So somebody says, can you talk more about the, about the public and how much does the public actually know about this practice. I can now watch TV. I read magazine so you know it's even in the newspapers I guess it depends what individual member of the public is interested in. I know I've had you know friends and family and people who've asked me about it. Not in the context of my knowledge but just generally because they've read about it and they found it interesting so it's out there. It's, it's not a secret. I mean, I think that people know about them but they are always it's also how the information is presented. They, I mean, I remember reading about Buckley in excruciating detail but that's because Mr Buckley was a, his confession was thrown out he was released, and he had the opportunity to go and give an extremely detailed account of what has happened to the press right, but I think. And as you said, Buckley is actually not the worst of those cases by comparing to so unfortunately in some of the worst scenarios. The targets did not get the chance to explain their side and to, to, to give this kind of details so I think that there may be some information out there but I take, I take our commenters point that you know, I don't think the public knows a lot of details about what, what goes on sometimes. And when they do they're always qualified by the horrific crime that the target has allegedly done which is probably, you know, it's making it hard to be sympathetic right to the situation so no that's true. And so, so there is more information than there was five years ago I think that's probably correct. Okay, so we're going to have to stop here we probably be I would at least I would be able to talk about this all evening but we'll have to stop here I really appreciate your time and your expertise path. This has been a really interesting talk and the video has been recording and is going to be available on the YouTube channel of school of law so we are thrilled to have had you here thank you so much. You're very welcome thanks for having me.