Cop killer to be sentenced ahead of appeal claiming ‘false’ confession

A Halifax man who murdered an off-duty police officer faces sentencing Monday, even as he fights to have his conviction overturned in part because he says police interview tactics elicited a false confession.

Christopher Garnier, 30, was convicted of second-degree murder and interfering with a dead body in December after a jury found that he punched and strangled Catherine Campbell, 36, and used a compost bin to dump her body. The conviction carries an automatic life sentence, but a hearing to determine when Garnier will be able to apply for parole is set for Monday. Crown lawyer Carla Ball has confirmed that victim impact statements have been filed as part of the sentencing hearing.

Garnier and Campbell had met hours before the 2015 killing at a Halifax bar; Garnier has suggested that she died accidentally during rough sex.

Garnier is appealing his conviction on a number of grounds, including that Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Joshua Arnold erred in not allowing opinion evidence from a cognitive psychologist on whether a statement Garnier gave police was free and voluntary.

In a voir dire decision released after the trial, Arnold notes that Garnier asserted “his confession was false and that this false statement was the product of faulty police interrogation techniques.”

During a nine-hour recorded interview with police, Garnier said he punched Campbell and had his hands around her throat as she was choking, but he repeatedly said he could not remember other details from that night. He exercised his right to remain silent 64 times.

The defence had wanted to call Dr. Timothy Moore — chairman of the Psychology Department at York University’s Glendon College — to testify at the trial about how interrogation techniques and tactics affect memory, and his opinion about the truthfulness of Garnier’s statement. Arnold ultimately ruled against allowing Moore to testify in that regard.

His written decision, dated April 12, 2018, quotes a report written by Moore, in which the psychologist explains a particular police interrogation technique that is effective in eliciting genuine confessions from someone who is guilty, but also has an inherent risk of extracting false confessions from innocent people.

“During the 6th hour of the interrogation, CG’s (Garnier’s) resolve to follow his lawyer’s advice to remain silent appeared to collapse and he began to answer the detective’s questions. In my opinion, his decision to speak was not intentional. Rather, he simply succumbed to the intense pressure to which he was subjected,” Moore wrote. “Further, CG’s statements during the remaining portion of the interrogation were, in my view, of questionable reliability because of the manner in which they were elicited ... I do not perceive CG’s statements to have been freely or willingly given. Moreover, in light of the means by which they were elicited they are, in my opinion, of dubious reliability in any case.”

In his decision, Arnold noted that Moore never interviewed or examined Garnier as part of his report, nor did he review the Crown disclosure.