The Reid technique: what Canadian law says

What is the Reid technique?

The Reid technique is an interrogation approach developed and trademarked by John E. Reid & Associates in the United States in 1947. It has been one of the interrogation techniques used in North America since then and has been taught to several police departments since its development.

Its purpose is ultimately to extract admission or confession during the interrogation of a person accused of committing a crime. Offers of sympathy and help, such as legal assistance, are given to the accused, in exchange for their confession.

How does the Reid technique work?

The Reid technique instructs investigators to engage in “behaviour symptom analysis,” relying on patterns of conduct that supposedly indicate whether the suspect is telling the truth.

The Alberta case of R. v. M.J.S., [2000] A.J. No. 391 describes it is an “interrogation process designed to convince a suspect that they are caught and further that there is no possible avenue for persuading any member of the Criminal Justice System that they were not involved.”

Here’s a video from the Reid & Associates briefly talking about how the technique works:

Law enforcers can reach out to criminal lawyers if they want to know more about the Reid technique. Check out this Special Report from Canadian Lawyer, one of our sister publications, on the Top Criminal Law Firms in Canada.

Process of the Reid technique

The Reid technique involves nine steps of interrogation, namely:

1. Positive confrontation
2. Developing a theme
3. Handling denials
4. Overcoming objections
5. Retaining the subject’s attention
6. Handling the suspect’s mood
7. Creating an opportunity to confess
8. Obtaining an oral confession
9. Converting an oral confession into a written on

From a different perspective, Jeffrey Manishen, a partner of Ross & McBride LLP practising criminal defence law in Hamilton, outlined the process:

• The interrogation begins with the investigator asserting his absolute certainty of the suspect’s guilt. The suspect is relentlessly pushed to accept culpability.
• Moral justifications may be proffered (for example, that the suspect experienced abuse as a child, or that they inflicted the injuries unintentionally).
• The suspect may be confronted with exaggerated or fabricated evidence. They may be told that the proof of their guilt is incontrovertible, given that all other suspects had been cleared.
• The investigator may present two alternative versions of the suspect’s conduct. One of which is significantly worse than the other and encourages the suspect to adopt the less serious model.
• A suspect who remains silent or continues to deny involvement may be faced with an investigator unwilling to accept that position. The investigator then confronts the suspect with the theory of what “really” happened and endeavouring to overcome any reluctance to confess.

Is the Reid technique still used in Canada?

While there’s no official declaration that the Reid technique is dropped in Canada, there are a lot of alternatives or hybrid versions of it that are still being used. This is born out of the scrutiny of the technique over the past years. The situation has prompted police enforcers to seek other methods, that have minimized risks from the Reid, but still with its proven successes.

“While several police services in Canada have incorporated the use of investigative interviewing methods such as PEACE into their training, many have not yet chosen to discourage or discontinue the use of the Reid technique,” Manishen says.

The criminal defence lawyer noted, however, that several countries in Europe and elsewhere have successfully implemented the investigative interviewing method.

“In the United States, Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, a private agency involved in training police officers for many years, has discontinued teaching the Reid technique as a result of concerns over false confessions.”

Canadian cases involving the Reid technique

Since its use, Canada’s case law has elaborated on the use of the Reid technique, which serve as guide for the bench, the bar, and the law enforcement. These cases have weighed on the rights of the accused during these investigations, and the police’s responsibility of pursuing the correct suspect for the crime committed.

One of the main contentions of the technique’s use is the possibility of extracting false confessions from the accused. Because of the interrogation’s coercive nature, the accused may be forced to admit to the crime, even though they’re innocent. Another critic of this technique is that the accused's rights, as granted by law, are bypassed during the interrogation. 

Although there are cases when the confession acquired using the Reid technique is still considered admissible as evidence against the accused. 

Cases disfavoring the Reid technique

Manishen gave some insights on how Canadian courts view the Reid technique, citing the case of R. v. M.J.S. In 1998, a 25-year-old unsophisticated man in Alberta was arrested for aggravated assault on his infant son. After several hours of interrogation, during which he repeatedly denied hurting his son, he was left in the interview room. Sobbing, he wrote out an apology and made comments like, “How could I have done this?”

The investigating officers in the M.J.S. case managed to overcome the suspect’s refusal to accept responsibility for the offence by using the Reid technique. However, the trial judge was very critical of the methods used by the police on the suspect in the Alberta Provincial Court Criminal Division case. The judge characterized it as a “classic illustration of how slavish adherence to a technique can produce a coerced-compliant confession.” He then ruled the evidence inadmissible.

The trial judge in this case wasn’t the first to reach such conclusions in assessing the impact of the Reid technique on the admissibility of evidence and was, by no means, the last. Aside from the M.J.S. case, here are other cases where the court held against the admissibility of evidence acquired using the technique, as summarized by the Ross & McBride partner:

• R. v. Thaher, 2016 ONCJ 113: Justice Peter Andras Schreck refused to admit a Reid-based confession by a mentally ill, fatigued man accused of attempted murder and questioned for more than seven hours. Referring to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Oickle, 2000 SCC 38, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3, Schreck characterized the method as a “shoddy police practice … shown to be coercive and to produce false confessions.”
• R. v. Goro 2017 ONSC 1236: A warrant was executed by the police for footprint impressions on a man under investigation for a cold-case murder. He was never told of his right to counsel or told he was free to leave at any time. Rather, he was interrogated for almost six hours. In the face of lengthy police monologues insisting on his guilt, he denied culpability but some of his statements could have been contradicted by forensic evidence. In the ruling, Justice Dale Fitzpatrick found it unnecessary to decide the Reid issue due to overriding Charter issues on detention. However, he stated, “[U]se of the Reid technique or something akin to it does not automatically render a statement inadmissible. . . However, the technique is inherently coercive and for that reason has been the subject of considerable judicial and academic criticism.”

What are the alternatives to the Reid technique?

“One may wonder why some police services continue to use such questionable methods, given the risk of wrongful convictions, unsuccessful prosecutions and the attendant failure to investigate and apprehend the real perpetrators,” Manishen says.“It can’t be for a lack of alternatives.”

The PEACE method

The criminal defence lawyer elaborates on how an investigative interviewing approach should involve:

• a thorough and objective investigation of both the offence and the suspect
• followed by an open-ended interview where the suspect is allowed to talk freely in response to open-ended, non-confrontational questions

He says that this has proven to be very effective in gaining admissions that don’t involve the risk of false confessions. One such technique is the PEACE technique (preparation, engagement, accounting, closure and evaluation). This involves officers asking follow-up questions based on the answers given and other information compiled by the investigators.

He also suggests watching the very skillful interview of Col. Russell Williams by Ontario Provincial Police detective Jim Smyth. It shows how a suspect may be engaged in non-confrontational dialogue leading to false statements and a full confession to acts of murder.

If you’re interested in watching the full interrogation of Williams, here’s the video:

Both suspects and police officers can learn more about the Reid technique through a lawyer near their area. For this, you can check out Canadian Lawyer’s Special Report on the Top Law Firms in Ontario which lists the best lawyers in the province.

The Hart case

Law enforcers may also be guided by the Supreme Court decision of R. v. Hart, 2014 SCC 52, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 544. In this case, the Court laid down the two-pronged response to address issues on reliability, prejudice and police misconduct during what is called “Mr. Big operations.”

• First prong: the new common law rule of evidence must be recognized. Where the state recruits an accused into a fictitious criminal organization and elicits a confession from him, any confession by the accused during the operation must be treated as presumptively inadmissible.  This presumption is overcome only when the Crown can establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the probative value of the confession outweighs its prejudicial effect.

• Second prong: there must be reliance on the doctrine of abuse of process, given that Mr. Big operations can become abusive. It also recognizes that police cannot overcome the will of the accused and coerce a confession, such as by using violence and threats of violence.

The Phased Interview Approach

In 2015, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) transitioned to the Phased Interview Approach. This is after years of research with the UK’s PEACE method and pilot training, which started in 2011. This approach departs from the accusatory nature of police interrogations. As an alternative to the Reid, it has become effective in gathering complete, accurate and reliable information from the accused, who gives it out voluntarily.

According to the RCMP, the Phased Interview Approach is a hybridized model of the PEACE method. It contains elements of numerous scientifically validated techniques, such as cognitive interviewing and conversation management. Below are the following phases of this approach:

• review, preparation and planning phase
• introduction and legal obligations phase
• dialogue phase
• version challenge phase
• accusation and persuasion phase
• post interview phase

Some of the main differences between the Phased Interview and the Reid technique is that in the Phased Interview, there’s:

• use of a non-accusatory based interview
• departure from using the subjective assessment of the accused’s body language or words
• focus on gathering information, rather than on getting a confession

Reid technique and how to move forward with police interrogations

While the Reid technique is now discouraged by some since it has been developed, it has become a foundation of developing an interrogation method that is legally sound. Newer models have proved to balance the goal of solving criminal cases and in ensuring that the accused’s rights are still protected during the interrogation process.

Manishen encourages more judicial commentaries on the problematic aspects of the Reid method.

“Members of the legal profession [must] add their voices to those who have urged our police services to cease utilizing the Reid technique once and for all. Let’s hope they’ll listen. Our justice system would certainly be better if they do.”

For more regular articles related to the country’s criminal justice system, specifically in Ontario, bookmark our Criminal practice area page.