“Mr. Big” — a controversial police sting technique that has come under fire for producing false confessions — is driving a wedge between his two closest allies.Five years after Cobourg man Alan Smith was acquitted of first-degree murder following an elaborate and lengthy Mr. Big undercover operation, the Durham regional police who ran the sting and the Crown lawyers who advised them throughout have turned against each other in a fight over who’s at fault for the ill-fated investigation. The resource-intensive probe ended in Smith charged with first-degree murder in region’s oldest cold case — the 1974 death of Beverly Smith (no relation) — after he provided two varying confessions to undercover officers. But the case crumbled in 2014, when a judge tossed Smith’s confessions, saying they were so unreliable you could “drive a Mack truck” through the holes.Smith, who was acquitted after more than four years in jail, sued police and Crown lawyers for $19 million, claiming police misused their power and Crown lawyers should have known their tactics created a risk of false confessions.His lawsuit has since set off an unusual fight pitting Crown lawyers against the police, who launched their own crossclaim alleging two prosecutors provided them with “negligent advice” during the sting. “But for receiving this legal advice and direction, (Durham police) would not have proceeded with the investigation in the manner it was undertaken or charged (Smith),” reads the Durham police crossclaim, as quoted in a recent Court of Appeal ruling. In a 64-page decision released last week, Ontario’s highest court ruled that the Crown lawyers could not be held liable for guidance given to investigators during the probe, underscoring that police and Crown lawyers have “separate and distinct” roles. While police investigate allegations of crime, the Crown assesses whether a prosecut ...
|
