R. v. Pammett
The mandatory corroboration requirement in s.133 of the Criminal Code required a specific jury instruction; the trial judge's failure to give that instruction was a fatal error that could not be cured by the proviso or waived by absence of objection, so the conviction must be set aside and a new trial ordered.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C35084
- Parties
- Appellant: Robert Norman Pammett; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 25 April 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Perjury, Corroboration, Jury Instruction, Trial Error, New Trial
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Robert Norman Pammett
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury under s.133 of the Criminal Code requiring corroboration for perjury convictions
- 2 Whether the failure to give the mandatory s.133 charge is a fatal error and whether the criminal appeal proviso applies
Ratio Decidendi
The mandatory corroboration requirement in s.133 of the Criminal Code required a specific jury instruction; the trial judge's failure to give that instruction was a fatal error that could not be cured by the proviso or waived by absence of objection, so the conviction must be set aside and a new trial ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Conviction set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Pammett Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2001-04-25 Docket numbers C35084 Judges Catzman, Marvin Adrian; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Feldman, Kathryn N. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 2001425 DOCKET: C35084 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. ROBERT NORMAN PAMMETT (Appellant) BEFORE: CATZMAN, ABELLA and FELDMAN JJ.A. COUNSEL: Irwin A. Koziebrocki for the appellant Alison Hurst for the respondent HEARD: April 17 and 18, 2001 On appeal from the conviction by Mr. Justice H.R. McLean dated April 12, 2000 and sentence of October 3, 2000 ENDORSEMENT Released Orally: April 18, 2001 [1] The Crown called two eye witnesses to speak to the issue of perjury. [2] This raised the possibility that the jury might convict based on the evidence of only one of the two witnesses. Indeed, the trial judge charged the jury that: In order to convict you do not have to be satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that both of them correctly identified the accused. It is the totality of the evidence that must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Pammett is guilty of the offence charged This charge invited the jury to convict based on the evidence of only one of the two eye witnesses. [3] In our view, the trial judge was required to instruct the jury in accordance with s. 133 of the Criminal Code that no person can be convicted of perjury on the uncorroborated evidence of only one witness. The fact that the defence did not object does not obviate the need to comply with the clear statutory requirement in s. 133. The failure to give the mandatory charge is a fatal error, and we are, therefore, of the view that it is not appropriate to apply the proviso. [4] The appeal is allowed, the conviction is set aside and a new trial is ordered. “M.A. Catzman J.A.” “R.S. Abella J.A.” “K. Feldman J.A.”