| R v Mentuck | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Hearing: 2001: June 18; Judgment: 2001: November 15. | |
| Citations | R. v. Mentuck, [2001] 3 SCR 442, 2001 SCC 76 (Canlii) |
| Docket No. | 27738 [1] |
| 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.
Clayton Mentuck, a native lad, [2] 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. [3] 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. [4]
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. [5] [2] [6]
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. [3]
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. [7] Mr. Justice Alan MacInnes called the technique "bizarre". [4] Said Jonathan Kroft, a lawyer fighting the ban on behalf of The Winnipeg Free Press and Thomson Newspapers Ltd: [4]
There is a huge public interest in knowing how government operates vis-à-vis the citizen, If this ban becomes permanent, it will be a permanent impediment from knowing how the police operate.
Justice Iacobucci wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court a judgment that supported
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. [7] 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". [8] [6] A newspaper has taken to publish at intervals the story of Mentuck due to its importance. [9]
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. [10]
In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law – in civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. The double jeopardy protection in criminal prosecutions bars only an identical prosecution for the same offence; however, a different offence may be charged on identical evidence at a second trial. Res judicata protection is stronger – it precludes any causes of action or claims that arise from a previously litigated subject matter.
Reena Virk was a 14-year-old Canadian girl who was beaten and killed by a group of teenagers in Saanich, British Columbia, Canada. Her status as a victim of bullying prior to her murder attracted substantial media scrutiny in Canada. Six teenagers were tried and convicted for their participation in her death. The Globe and Mail commented at the time that her case was "elevated into a national tragedy". A pair of Canadian sociologists have described the case as a watershed moment for a "moral panic" over girl violence by the Canadian public in the late 1990s.
Within the criminal justice system of Japan, there exist three basic features that 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.
United States v Burns [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283, 2001 SCC 7, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that found that extradition of individuals to countries in which 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 that conclusion by a discussion of evidence regarding the arbitrary nature of execution although the Court did not go so far as to say that 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.
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 mizzen the violation of rights. It was further held that the media has a right to appeal a decision of a publication ban.
The Spiritwood Incident was a shooting that occurred on July 7, 2006, during a police pursuit in Saskatchewan, Canada, killing two of the three RCMP officers involved.
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 Pickton, also known as the Pig Farmer Killer or the Butcher, was a Canadian serial killer and pig farmer. After dropping out of school, he left a butcher's apprenticeship to begin working full-time at his family's pig farm, and inherited it in the early 1990s.
Nelson Hart was a Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, resident, who was convicted on March 28, 2007, of murdering his three-year-old twin daughters in 2002. He successfully appealed the conviction in 2007, and his 2014 confession to police, obtained through a Mr. Big Sting operation, was found to be inadmissible. Without the confession, Newfoundland and Labrador prosecutors declined to pursue a new trial.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
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:
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 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.
R v O.N.E. was a legal case heard in 2001 before the Supreme Court of Canada. It was an appeal against a ban on publication of details of the police investigation of a murder case. The appeal was allowed.
Fish J. wrote a unanimous verdict for the Court, rejecting Crown contentions that the investigative procedure ought to be withheld from public view, in this case of insalubrious slaughter of cattle at the Aylmer Meat Packers plant in Toronto. In fact, the scandal that ensued had a part in changing the leadership of the province.
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.
Colten Boushie was a 22-year-old Indigenous man of the Cree Red Pheasant First Nation who was fatally shot on a rural Saskatchewan farm by its owner, Gerald Stanley. Stanley stood trial for second-degree murder and for a lesser charge of manslaughter, but was ultimately acquitted in February 2018.
Marrisa Shen was a 13-year-old Canadian girl who was raped and murdered in a wooded area in Central Park, in Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. Shen was reported missing by her parents on the evening of July 18, 2017, after she failed to return home from what was supposed to be a brief trip to a nearby Tim Hortons. Early the next morning, police located her body in the park by tracking the GPS device inside her mobile phone. The RCMP stated the attack appeared to be random. After Shen's murder, the RCMP told parents to talk to their children about safety and warned the public to be vigilant.
Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that held that undercover police agents did not need to give Miranda warnings when talking to suspects in jail. Miranda warnings, named after the 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, are generally required when police interrogate suspects in custody in order to protect the right not to self-incriminate and the right to counsel under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. However, the Court ruled that potential coercion must be evaluated from the suspect's point of view, and if they are unaware that they are speaking to police, they are not under the coercive pressure of a normal interrogation.
Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433 (1958), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that limited criminal suspects' constitutional right to counsel before trial, refusing to overturn a subsequent conviction without a showing that the refusal of counsel had a coercive or prejudicial effect. This holding was later overturned by Escobedo v. Illinois and Miranda v. Arizona.