Palmer v The Queen

Palmer v. The Queen

[1980] 1 S.C.R. 759
Supreme Court of Canada — McIntyre J. | December 21, 1979

Background

Douglas Palmer and Donald Palmer were charged with conspiracy to traffic heroin in British Columbia between February 1969 and April 1975. The Crown's star witness was Frederick Ford, an admitted heroin trafficker with a criminal record. Ford testified extensively about the Palmers' involvement in the drug conspiracy and his evidence was crucial to their convictions.

After the trial, Ford revealed that the RCMP had paid him $25,000 "for services" about a week after the trial judgment. The defence learned about this payment and tried to introduce it as fresh evidence on appeal, arguing Ford's testimony had been compromised by the financial arrangement with police.

Issues

1. Should the Court of Appeal admit fresh evidence about the $25,000 payment to the Crown witness?
2. Did the trial judge err in accepting Ford's testimony about three specific incidents involving Douglas Palmer?

The Fresh Evidence Rule

The Supreme Court applied the strict test for admitting fresh evidence on appeal. New evidence must be: (1) not available at trial through due diligence, (2) relevant to a decisive issue, (3) credible, and (4) capable of affecting the trial result if believed. The Court found Ford's evidence about the police payment arrangement met all these criteria.

However, the Court concluded that even with this new evidence, Ford's testimony remained credible. The financial arrangement was disclosed in Ford's post-trial statements, and the Court noted that Ford had given consistent testimony both at the preliminary hearing and trial, despite intensive cross-examination. The payment came after his testimony was complete, not before.

Witness Credibility and Police Payments

The Court acknowledged the serious implications of paying Crown witnesses but found no evidence the payment influenced Ford's trial testimony. The arrangement involved police protection and relocation expenses for Ford and his family — legitimate law enforcement concerns given the dangerous nature of organized crime prosecutions. The Court emphasized that while such arrangements must be carefully scrutinized, they don't automatically invalidate witness testimony when properly disclosed and justified.

Key Takeaway

Police payments to Crown witnesses don't automatically destroy their credibility, but they must be fully disclosed to the defence.

The timing, amount, and purpose of any financial arrangements between police and witnesses are crucial factors in assessing credibility. Defence counsel should always inquire about such arrangements during cross-examination.