Supreme Court of Canada
Duncan et al. v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 783
Date: 1979-12-21
Thomas Maxwell Duncan, John Albert Smith and Robert Porter Appellants;
and
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent.
1979: June 26, 27; 1979: December 21.
Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and Mclntyre JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
Criminal law—Appellants convicted of conspiring to traffic in heroin—Subsequent declarations by principal Crown witness asserting his trial evidence untrue—Refusal of Court of Appeal to admit this new evidence—No error in law on part of Court of Appeal—Criminal Code, R.S.C 1970, c. C-34, s. 610(1)(d).
APPEAL against the refusal of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia to admit fresh evidence in the appeal of the appellants against their conviction in the Supreme Court of British Columbia before Macfarlane J. sitting without a jury upon an indictment charging a conspiracy to traffic in heroin. Appeal dismissed.
John D. Banks, for the appellants.
Mark M. de Weerdt, Q.C., for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
MCINTYRE J.—The appellants were convicted on March 23 of 1976 of conspiring to traffic in heroin. Douglas Garnet Palmer and Donald Palmer, the appellants in Douglas Garnet Palmer and Donald Palmer v. The Queen, judgment in which appeal is given concurrently, were named in the same indictment with certain others as conspirators and convicted with the present appellants. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia and upon that appeal applied to have certain fresh evidence received before the Court of Appeal. This motion was refused and their appeal dismissed. They appeal to this Court.
[Page 784]
This appeal was heard with the appeal of the Palmers. The appellants raised the same grounds of appeal and contended for the reception in evidence of the same evidence. Counsel adopted the arguments advanced for the Palmers and added certain supplementary submissions.
I am unable to see any difference in the two appeals and for the reasons given in Douglas Garnet Palmer and Donald Palmer v. The Queen, supra, I would dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Solicitors for the appellants: Clarke, Covell, Banks, Vancouver.
Solicitor for the respondent: Roger Tassé, Ottawa.
Email this Content