I have heard enough one-sided, subjective arguments in the media characterizing the use of this investigative technique as reckless and unfair. It seems that the arguments in support of the use of this advanced tradecraft prevail where it really matters, in Provincial and Supreme Courts across Canada. This highly effective investigative tool was first developed in North Vancouver ( /R. v Beaulac/ ) in 1988 whereby one of the pioneers of Canadian undercover operations, Jean-Yves Pineault, created mock crime scenarios which convinced the suspect to make disclosures to him about the murder he had committed. In that case, as with the vast majority of homicide undercover operations which followed, these disclosures contained intimacies of the offence known only to the killer, an important ingredient in the avoidance of false confessions. This is referred to as “hold back evidence”, and the careful handling of this critical information is essential for the confession to be viewed as credible by triers of fact within the judicial process.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Undercover Unit in Vancouver has developed and honed this technique over the past twenty years to the point where they are the envy of law enforcement agencies world-wide. Senior investigators from dozens of countries around the globe have travelled to Vancouver for exposure to this tradecraft which has solved hundreds of murders across Canada, and a growing number around the world.
Contrary to the complaints from those who would strip the police of such a valuable investigative tool, there is limited value placed on a murder confession provided to undercover operatives in the absence of a significant amount of corroboration. In each case where a suspect has disclosed his or her responsibility for a killing, this is when the work really begins. The validity of the confession is rigorously tested by re-examination of the forensic evidence, DNA comparisons, video-taped re-enactments, further forensic interviews, wiretap applications and other advanced investigative weaponry. No police investigator wants to charge an innocent person. In twenty-nine years of policing in some of the highest risk sections within law enforcement, I am certain that I have never brought an innocent party before the courts. Having participated in over forty “Mr. Big” confessions myself in a variety of roles, I can unequivocally say that there is little satisfaction in obtaining a disclosure to a murder on its own. Examples of the most meaningful evidence occur when a suspect takes an undercover operative to a shallow grave and exposes the body, a murder weapon or produces articles bearing trace evidence to corroborate the account which he or she has provided.
The position of the courts with respect to undercover confessions is very clear, and one that all professional investigators understand. In the absence of corroboration, these admissions are of little value on their own. The job of an investigator in the 21st century requires the elimination of reasonable doubt to achieve a conviction. I subscribe to this standard of proof as a necessity in preventing wrongful convictions. The recovery of corroborating evidence well after a murder charge is laid must be pursued with passion and commitment. Anything less places the prosecution at risk.
I think it’s important for people to understand how much integrity goes into this investigative process before criticizing it in the absence of the facts. The Canadian public needs its law enforcement agencies to be properly equipped to get the job done. No less than the Supreme Court of Canada has spoken at length about the importance of this critical investigative tool. We should all celebrate the wisdom of the judiciary in this regard.
In our work with private sector clients we continue to employ this technique in the conduct of our investigations, and have realized considerable success in bringing home critical evidence, improving our clients’ business position in each and every instance.