R v Mentuck

Last updated
R v Mentuck
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: 2001: June 18;
Judgment: 2001: November 15.
Citations R. v. Mentuck, [2001] 3 SCR 442, 2001 SCC 76 (Canlii)
Docket No. 27738
Court Membership
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by The Court

R v Mentuck is a 2001 criminal case in Canada which led to changes in undercover police procedure and how to interrogate suspects.

Canada Country in North America

Canada is a country in the northern part of North America. Its ten provinces and three territories extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific and northward into the Arctic Ocean, covering 9.98 million square kilometres, making it the world's second-largest country by total area. Its southern border with the United States, stretching some 8,891 kilometres (5,525 mi), is the world's longest bi-national land border. Canada's capital is Ottawa, and its three largest metropolitan areas are Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.

Contents

Overview

Clayton Mentuck, a native lad, [1] was accused of killing a 14 year old teenager, Amanda Cook, in 1996. His first murder trial ended with a stay of proceedings in April 1998 after the trial judge ruled that certain statements, because police had violated his Charter rights, could not be heard by the jury. [2] In April 1998 lawyers revealed that a tape of Mr. Mentuck's police interrogation had been doctored, causing Mr Justice John A. Menzies of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba to issue the stay. [3]

John A. Menzies was appointed to the Family Division of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba in 1996. On October 7, 1998, he was appointed to that court's General Division, upon the resignation of V. Simonsen. He presides in Brandon.

The Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba is the superior court of the Canadian province of Manitoba. The court is divided into the Family Division and the General Division.

The conduct of the RCMP was questioned by the defence in the second trial because of the procedure that was employed to obtain Mentuck's confession, now known as Mr. Big (police procedure). After the first trial had ended in a hung jury, Mentuck denied the murder was his at least a dozen times to an undercover officer (aka "Mr Big") but he finally caved and confessed, after significant verbal pressure and financial subsidy from Mr Big. The judge ruled that the confession be excluded because the level of inducement diminished the reliability of the testimony. [4] [1] [5]

Mr. Big is a covert investigation procedure used by undercover police to elicit confessions from suspects in cold cases. Police officers create a fictitious grey area and/or criminal organization and then seduce the suspect into joining it. They build a relationship with the suspect, gain their confidence, and then enlist their help in a succession of criminal acts for which they are paid. Once the suspect has become enmeshed in the criminal gang they are persuaded to divulge information about their criminal history, usually as a prerequisite for being accepted as a member of the organization.

Because the jury could not convict him in his second trial, the judge declared a mistrial. A third trial was scheduled a few months later. [2]

For the third trial, Mentuck elected to be tried by judge alone. He was exonerated and wished for his ordeal, and in particular the tactics used in his case by the RCMP to elicit a confession, to be known by the public at large but was prevented by a publication ban. Mentuck appealed the ban to the Supreme Court of Canada. Unlike most cases this case did not come up through an appeal court. Contemporary law prevents intermediate courts from judging publication bans, making the only avenue for such challenges the Supreme Court. [6] Mr. Justice Alan MacInnes called the technique "bizarre". [3] Said Jonathan Kroft, a lawyer fighting the ban on behalf of The Winnipeg Free Press and Thomson Newspapers Ltd: [3]

Alan D. MacInnes, formerly a judge of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba, was appointed to the Manitoba Court of Appeal on June 22, 2007. He replaced Glenn Joyal, who was appointed a judge of the Court of Queen's Bench.

Thomson Corporation company

The Thomson Corporation was one of the world's largest information companies. It was established in 1989 following a merger between International Thomson Organisation Ltd (ITOL) and Thomson Newspapers. In 2008, it purchased Reuters Group to form Thomson Reuters. The Thomson Corporation was active in financial services, healthcare sectors, law, science and technology research and tax and accounting sectors. The company operated through five segments : Thomson Financial, Thomson Healthcare, Thomson Legal, Thomson Scientific and Thomson Tax & Accounting.

Justice Iacobucci wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court a judgment that supported

Frank Iacobucci, was a Puisne Justice on the Supreme Court of Canada from 1991 to 2004 when he retired from the bench. He is an expert in business and tax law.

  1. a publication ban for one year but no more as to the identity of police officers who arrested Mentuck, and
  2. refusing a ban as to operational methods.

That is, the operational methods were forthwith subject to disclosure. The ban ordered by the trial judge was properly issued and was of the appropriate scope in light of the requirements of the Charter. A three-pronged analysis introduced here by the court required the consideration of the necessity of the ban in relation to its object of protecting the proper administration of justice.

The appeal was from a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba. The particular trial dealt with a second-degree murder suspect. The suspect was subject to three trials, at the end of which he was acquitted. In the interval, Mentuck spent 20 months in jail. [6] This case is important because it shows that the revelation of the operational methods of police is no bar to publication. A protocol has arisen in Canadian law to determine whether a publication ban can be justified; this protocol is now known as the Dagenais/Mentuck test.

The Mentuck case has become infamous, as the Mr Big procedure has become viewed by the courts as "ingenious, not insidious". One author, writing in 2007, even says that the technique is "indiscriminate and pernicious". [7] [5] A newspaper has taken to publish at intervals the story of Mentuck due to its importance. [8]

Nearly twenty years later, it was revealed that Mentuck had written a note to Cook's mother in which he confessed the crime, but the note was deemed unreliable and inadmissible in court. It was not stated under what conditions the note had been written. [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction. As described by the U.S. Supreme Court in its unanimous decision concerning Ball v. United States 163 U.S. 662 (1896), one of its earliest cases dealing with double jeopardy, "the prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial."

Stephen Downing case

The Stephen Downing case involved the conviction and imprisonment in 1974 of a 17-year-old council worker, Stephen Downing, for the murder of a 32-year-old legal secretary, Wendy Sewell, in the town of Bakewell in the Peak District in Derbyshire, north midlands.

Three basic features of Japan's system of criminal justice characterize its operations. First, the institutions—police, government prosecutors' offices, courts, and correctional organs—maintain close and cooperative relations with each other, consulting frequently on how best to accomplish the shared goals of limiting and controlling crime. Second, citizens are encouraged to assist in maintaining public order, and they participate extensively in crime prevention campaigns, apprehension of suspects, and offender rehabilitation programs. Finally, officials who administer criminal justice are allowed considerable discretion in dealing with offenders.

A false confession is an admission of guilt for a crime for which the confessor is not responsible. False confessions can be induced through coercion or by the mental disorder or incompetency of the accused. Research has demonstrated that false confessions occur on a regular basis in case law. Juveniles have a significantly higher rate of false confessions than do adults.

<i>United States v Burns</i>

United States v Burns [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283, 2001 SCC 7, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in which it was found that extradition of individuals to places where they may face the death penalty is a breach of fundamental justice under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The decision reached this conclusion through a discussion of evidence regarding the arbitrary nature of execution, although the Court did not go so far as to say execution was also unconstitutional under section 12 of the Charter, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments.

The Trenton Six is the group name for six African-American defendants tried for murder of an elderly white shopkeeper in January 1948 in Trenton, New Jersey. The six young men were convicted in August 1948 by an all-white jury of the murder and sentenced to death.

<i>Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corp</i>

Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corp, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on publication bans and their relation to the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was held that judges have a common law discretionary authority to impose publication bans on information revealed in a criminal trial. The judge, however, must weigh competing rights, such as freedom of expression and right to a fair trial, to minimize the violation of rights. It was further held that the media has a right to appeal a decision of a publication ban.

<i>R v Latimer</i> (1997)

R v Latimer, [1997] 1 SCR 217, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the controversial case of Robert Latimer, a Saskatchewan farmer convicted of murdering his disabled daughter Tracy. The case involved consideration of arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and rights to an explanation for detention and rights to counsel under section 10. The Supreme Court ultimately overturned Latimer's conviction due to the Crown's improper actions at the jury selection stage. As a result, the decision was the first given by the Supreme Court in the Latimer case, the second being R v Latimer on cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Charter.

The Spiritwood Incident occurred on 7 July 2006. The shooting during police hot pursuit began in the town of Spiritwood, Saskatchewan, Canada, a community of about 1000 people located approximately 92 miles (148 km) Northwest of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and ended near Mildred, Saskatchewan, approximately 27 kilometres away.

Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held unconstitutional prior restraints on media coverage during criminal trials.

Robert William "Willy" Pickton is a Canadian serial killer who was convicted in 2007 of the second-degree murders of six women. Arrested in 2002, he was the subject of a lengthy investigation that yielded evidence of numerous other murders. Pickton was charged with the deaths of an additional twenty women, many of them from Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, but these charges were stayed by the Crown in 2010. Pickton was sentenced to life in prison, with no possibility of parole for 25 years – the longest sentence for murder under Canadian law.

Justice Elizabeth Bennett is judge of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. During her term on the Supreme Court of British Columbia, she presided over two notable corruption trials.

Nelson Hart is a Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada resident who was convicted on 28 March 2007 of murdering his three-year-old twin daughters in 2002. He successfully appealed the conviction in 2007 and ultimately, in 2014 his confession to police was found to be inadmissible as evidence causing the Crown to dismiss the murder charges for lack of evidence.

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution Amendment guaranteeing rights related to trials and due process

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses criminal procedure and other aspects of the Constitution. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment applies to every level of the government, including the federal, state, and local levels, as well as any corporation, private enterprise, group, or individual, or any foreign government in regard to a US citizen or resident of the US. The Supreme Court furthered the protections of this amendment through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

Curtis Flowers American death row inmate

Curtis Giovanni Flowers is an African-American man who has been tried six times in the state of Mississippi, United States, for murder in the July 16, 1996, shooting deaths of four people inside Tardy Furniture store in downtown Winona. He was first convicted in 1997; in five of the six trials, the prosecutor, Doug Evans, sought the death penalty against Flowers. As a result, he has been held on death row at the Parchman division of Mississippi State Penitentiary for nearly 20 years.

United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the U.S. Const., Amend. V protection against double jeopardy did not prevent a retrial of a defendant, who had previously requested a mistrial.

Michael Moldaver is a Canadian judge. He has been a puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada since his 2011 appointment by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Before his elevation to the nation's top court, he served as a judge at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario for over 20 years. A former criminal lawyer, Moldaver is considered an expert in both Canadian criminal law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (2012), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified the limits of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial of counts that a jury had previously unanimously voted to acquit on, when a mistrial is declared after the jury deadlocked on a lesser included offense.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.