Media release: Responding to Victoria Police's Statement on Mr Big and Glenn Weaven
Victoria Police recently issued a statement standing behind the investigation that led to Glenn Weaven's conviction for the 2008 death of Mary Lou Cook, while declining to comment further on the specifics of the covert methods employed. This was in response to a recently released multipart podcast series ‘Mr Big’ produced by the ABC which looked into the case.
The Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative has been looking into Weaven’s case for several years. We believe various aspects of the case, including the use of the Mr Big policing technique, indicate serious flaws in the investigation.
Victoria Police's statement highlights the supposed rigor of its covert methodologies, claiming that they are deployed to "seek justice for victims" and "ensure community safety." However, our concern is not with the concept of covert investigations in general but with how the covert Mr Big technique has been applied, its lack of oversight, and the risk it poses in eliciting false confessions.
As we explain in our paper "Who's Watching Mr Big? Scenario Operations and Induced Confessions", the Mr Big technique is a highly manipulative form of undercover operation where police create a fake criminal gang to build a relationship with a suspect, ultimately convincing them to confess to a crime to gain benefits within the gang. This confession is then used to secure a conviction.
This technique carries the very real potential for coercion and manipulation. The suspect, believing they are confessing to an all-powerful criminal organisation capable of making police investigations disappear, may falsely admit guilt in the hope of gaining protection or rewards. In Glenn Weaven's case, it is crucial to scrutinise the circumstances under which his confession was obtained, as discrepancies in the details of the confession raise doubt about its reliability.
Victoria Police's statement emphasises that covert operations like Mr Big are subject to internal operating procedures and oversight regimes. However, this fails to acknowledge the stark lack of independent scrutiny over these operations.
While controlled operations in Australia are regulated by specific legislative frameworks, Mr Big operations appear to fall outside these controlled environments. Further, crucial elements of the investigation, such as the interactions between undercover officers and the suspect, are not checked by independent oversight bodies.
A lack of transparency becomes even more concerning when considering the power dynamics at play. The Mr Big operation allows police to circumvent vital legal safeguards, such as the right to remain silent and the right to be warned about the consequences of self-incrimination.
These issues are exacerbated by the risk of the risk of false confessions in Mr Big operations, particularly when vulnerable individuals are targeted. As we noted in an analysis of Australian cases in our paper, the technique preys on suspects' vulnerabilities, creating a high-pressure environment where they may feel compelled to admit to crimes they did not commit. Psychological research supports this, showing that individuals subjected to such coercive tactics are more likely to falsely confess, especially if they believe it will help them avoid further consequences.
In Glenn Weaven's case, the inconsistencies between the confession and the physical evidence found at the crime scene, such as the type of weapon used, should raise alarm bells about the reliability of the confession obtained through the Mr Big technique. Yet, despite these discrepancies, the confession was admitted as evidence because in Australia, covert police are currently exempt from a statutory test for the reliability of confessions.
The Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative believes that stronger oversight mechanisms and judicial safeguards are required to ensure that Mr Big operations do not result in wrongful convictions. Specifically, we believe:
Mr Big operations should be subject to the same oversight as other controlled operations.
The current legal framework does not adequately address the unique risks posed by inducement-based confessions in covert operations.
Courts should provide clearer warnings to juries about the risks of false confessions in Mr Big cases. Juries must be informed about the potential for coercion and the psychological pressures placed on suspects during these operations.
Glenn Weaven's case deserves renewed scrutiny, particularly in light of the issues raised by this controversial investigative technique.