A decade of Hart Break: how the use of the Mr. Big Technique has (not) changed since R v Hart (2014)

The Mr. Big technique is a Canadian-invented investigative practice that lures suspects, over a prolonged period, into a fake criminal organisation, where they are paid large sums of cash for engaging in easy, but ‘illegal’ work. To move up in the organisation, they must confess to a crime they have committed. In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; R v Hart, 2014) decided that limits needed to be placed on the technique as it created a risk for the elicitation of non-voluntary and potentially false confessions. Mr. Big confessions now had to survive a two-pronged analysis to determine: (1) if the confession provided more probative value than the prejudicial impact, and (2) if there was an abuse of process due to police action or suspect vulnerabilities. Ten years later, we review the legal and psychological communities’ response to the SCC decision, as well as if police have changed their process. An analysis of pre- versus post-Hart cases shows few changes to the frequency of admission or conviction in Mr. Big cases, and little evidence that targets are any less vulnerable. We review policy implications and the extent to which use of the Mr. Big technique has expanded beyond Canada.