R. v. Palmer, (1979) 30 N.R. 181 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and McIntyre, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 21, 1979
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1979), 30 N.R. 181 (SCC);1979 CanLII 188 (SCC);[1980] 1 SCR 783;1979 CanLII 8 (SCC);106 DLR (3d) 212;14 CR (3d) 22;50 CCC (2d) 193;30 NR 181;[1979] CarswellBC 533;[1979] SCJ No 126 (QL);[1979] ACS no 126;4 WCB 171

R. v. Palmer (1979), 30 N.R. 181 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Palmer

Indexed As: R. v. Palmer

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and McIntyre, JJ.

December 21, 1979.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of conspiracy to traffic in heroin. The accused was convicted by the trial judge sitting with a jury. The accused appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The accused applied to the British Columbia Court of Appeal for leave to adduce new evidence on appeal. The accused offered statements by a key Crown witness that he lied at trial. The British Columbia Court of Appeal refused the accused's request to offer such evidence on appeal. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed the refusal of the British Columbia Court of Appeal to admit the new evidence on appeal.

Practice - Topic 9030

Appeals - Evidence on appeal - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that evidence may be admitted on appeal if it was unavailable at trial, if it is relevant and credible and if it could reasonably be expected to have affected the result at trial (see paragraph 21).

Practice - Topic 9032

Appeals - Evidence on appeal - Criminal cases - Criminal Code, s. 610(1)(d) - The accused was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in heroin - On appeal the accused requested leave to offer evidence that a key Crown witness lied at the accused's trial (after the trial the witness said he lied at trial) - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the refusal of the British Columbia Court of Appeal to admit the new evidence on appeal - The British Columbia Court of Appeal refused the request because the evidence offered did not possess sufficient credibility so that it might reasonably have been believed by the trier of fact (see paragraphs 24 to 28).

Evidence - Topic 4728

Examination of witnesses - Impeaching credit - Paid Crown witnesses - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the dangers inherent in payments to Crown witnesses for the protection of the witnesses and their families (see paragraphs 29 to 31).

Evidence - Topic 4724

Examination of witnesses - Impeaching credit - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a finding against the credibility of a witness may be even though the witness is not cross-examined on all aspects of his testimony (see paragraphs 32 to 34).

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stewart (1972), 8 C.C.C.(2d) 137 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Foster (1978), 8 A.R. 1 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. McDonald, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 426 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Demeter (1976), 25 C.C.C.(2d) 417 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

McMartin v. The Queen, [1964] S.C.R. 484, refd to. [paras. 21 and 22].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 610(1)(d) [para. 11].

Counsel:

Harry Walsh, Q.C., for the appellants;

Mark M. de Weerdt, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, PRATTE and McINTYRE, JJ. at Ottawa, Ontario on June 26 and 27, 1979.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by McINTYRE, J. on December 21, 1979.