Palmer v. The Queen
Listen to Podcast
Case Brief
Facts
Douglas and Donald Palmer were convicted of conspiring to traffic heroin. A key Crown witness, Ford, later recanted his testimony, claiming it was fabricated due to police coercion and promises of payment. The Palmers appealed, seeking to introduce this new evidence. The British Columbia Court of Appeal refused to admit the fresh evidence, and the Palmers appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Issues
1. Did the Court of Appeal err in refusing to admit Ford's recantation as fresh evidence? 2. Did the trial judge err in rejecting Douglas Palmer's testimony regarding three incidents involving Ford, where Ford gave no evidence on those incidents, and Palmer was not cross-examined?
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court outlined principles for admitting fresh evidence on appeal: (1) It should not be admitted if it could have been adduced at trial with due diligence (though this is applied less strictly in criminal cases); (2) it must be relevant to a decisive issue; (3) it must be credible; and (4) if believed, it could reasonably be expected to have affected the result. The Court found that the Court of Appeal correctly applied the credibility test and found Ford's recantation unbelievable. Regarding the second issue, the Court held that the trial judge's rejection of Palmer's testimony was based on the totality of the evidence, not solely on the three incidents.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal did not err in refusing to admit the fresh evidence because it was not credible. The trial judge's rejection of Palmer's testimony was justified based on the overall evidence presented.