R. v. Buckley

R. v. Buckley

The Mr. Big confession and all evidence surrounding Operation Hackman are inadmissible because the Crown failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the confession's probative value outweighed its substantial prejudicial effect given prior disclosure, powerful inducements, lack of independent corroboration...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2018 NSSC 1
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: John Buckley
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal: Murder / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Mr. Big Confession; Pre Trial
Outcome
Mr. Big confession excluded; evidence of Operation Hackman inadmissible; three‑year publication ban under s.486.5 imposed protecting undercover and cover operators (use initials)
Legal Topics
Mr. Big Technique, Admissibility of Confessions, Voir Dire, Publication Ban (s.486.5 Criminal Code), Degenais/mentuck Test, Reliability Markers in Confessions
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Police Investigative Techniques Mr. Big Technique Admissibility of Confessions Voir Dire Publication Ban (s.486.5 Criminal Code) +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

John Buckley

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal: Murder / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Mr. Big Confession; Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Mr. Big confession is admissible under the Hart framework
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved on a balance of probabilities that the confession's probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect
  3. 3 Whether the confession contains independent markers of reliability or led to discovery of corroborating evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Mr. Big confession and all evidence surrounding Operation Hackman are inadmissible because the Crown failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the confession's probative value outweighed its substantial prejudicial effect given prior disclosure, powerful inducements, lack of independent corroboration and unreliable subsequent cautioned statement; a time‑limited three‑year publication ban under s.486.5 is warranted to protect undercover officers.

Court Disposition

Mr. Big confession excluded; evidence of Operation Hackman inadmissible; three‑year publication ban under s.486.5 imposed protecting undercover and cover operators (use initials)

Orders

  • Exclude the Mr. Big confession and all evidence surrounding Operation Hackman from trial
  • Impose a publication ban under s.486.5 of the Criminal Code for three years protecting the identities of undercover and cover operators and require use of initials in reporting and records