Big’ and the Canadian Technique, and the fairly recent decision in Hart, we can review the case literature which helps us to build a better understanding of just how the police go about enacting their story time adventures and selling their shit to their target.
The cases listed below are aimed specifically at making murder cases, not dope cases – but that doesn’t mean that a component of one of these scenarios or cases couldn’t be used in a dope case.
There was discussion about the desirability of the two men meeting up again. The nature of the Canadian Technique, that its shaping and inducements cannot be readily concealed, is integral to the investigative tactic, and as such, its machinations have come out in case after case in multiple jurisdictions.
Are you likely to come up against such a concerted effort?
The litany of different things someone being worked by an undercover may think they are involved in is conveniently set out in a number of Australian court cases.
What UC police scenarios have involved previously, according to court records.
The meeting was successful in establishing a rapport between “John” and Lauchlan and together they traveled to Zeehan to search for “Sue”.
If the suspect does confess, the fiction soon unravels and the suspect is arrested and charged.” How it ends The confession is recorded, details which no one else but the perpetrator could know are elicited, and blam – you’ve made a murder case.For starters, look at R v Karakas (Ruling No 1)  VSC 480, at paragraph 19; “In this case eighteen separate scenarios were played out which involved the accused and which led him to believe that he was participating in offences such as blackmail, illegal payments of large sum of cash, dealing in firearms and cigarettes, money laundering, payments to corrupt police and judges, burglary and the importation by plane of a large amount of hashish.” Sounds like the cops are inviting you into quite a world of mayhem, doesn’t it? In Lauchlan v The State of Western Australia  WASCA 227 at paragraph 17, the list provided includes “the collection of moneys from protection rackets and prostitutes, the handling of firearms, including automatic weapons and submachine guns for delivery to outlaw motorcycle gangs, the reconnaissance of suitable landing grounds for an aircraft involved in drug importation, the collection of ‘diamonds’ from a jewel robbery, the preparation of parcels of drugs for distribution into a supply chain, and the collection of moneys from another “gang” member who had supposedly double-crossed the gang and is being forced to repay money owed.” Interesting stuff, huh? Hart, 2014 SCC 52 Hart was, according to the court, unemployed.Complex, intricate scenarios, well thought out and prepared. At paragraph 38 of Hart, – “he stayed in hotels and dined frequently in some of the country’s finest restaurants.Big” in Canada, or the “Canadian Technique” elsewhere. He was targeted using a Canadian Technique investigation, and confessed his sins to an undercover cop.The Mounties came up with it back in the 1990s, the Australian picked it up in 1999, the New Zealanders first saw it (as far as the court records go) in 2006 and its still being used today. However, it was beaten, in that instance, on appeal.