The appellant appealed convictions for first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and arson arising from a contract killing proved in significant part through confessions obtained in a Mr. Big operation.
He argued that undercover officers improperly discouraged him from consulting his lawyer before meeting a senior undercover operative, and that this conduct amounted to an abuse of process requiring exclusion of his statements.
The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge was entitled to find the confessions reliable and admissible under the Hart framework, and that the brief exchange about counsel did not coerce the appellant or otherwise undermine the integrity of the justice system.
The appeal was dismissed.
