fbpx

PHILIP CAMPBELL

Tel: (844) 395-4084 x223 | pcampbell@lcp-law.com

Philip Campbell is a partner in Lockyer Campbell Posner. A graduate of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, he was a partner in Copeland Liss Campbell following his 1984 call to the bar and then in the Criminal Division of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell from 2000 to 2003. He and James Lockyer formed Lockyer Campbell in 2003 in order to pursue their ground-breaking work in the reversal of wrongful convictions. Besides his extensive work in that area, Mr Campbell maintains a trial and appellate practice with a focus on serious and complex litigation.

Experience

He has broad experience in the defence of homicide prosecutions, sexual assault and narcotics cases, white collar crimes, professional misconduct and matters with sophisticated constitutional issues. He has acted on a number of extradition cases and maintains a special interest in that challenging area of the law.

Mr. Campbell is active on the Case Review Committee of Convicted Innocence Canada (formerly AIDWYC) and and has served as counsel on a number of the organization’s most challenging cases. He is also an active member of the Criminal Lawyers Association and has recently represented the CLA as intervenor in the important case of R. v. Hart, a judgment which established a new test for the admission of evidence acquired pursuant to “Mr. Big” undercover operations. He is also counsel to the CLA on the judicial review of a ruling regarding the level of secrecy on judicial misconduct proceedings.

Mr. Campbell has written and spoken at a wide range of legal conferences and symposia, including the Canadian Bar Association, the National Criminal Law Program, the Law Society of Upper Canada, the annual conference of Superior Court judges and the Criminal Lawyers Association. He has been an instructor at the University of Toronto Centre of Criminology and has lectured at the University of Toronto Law School, Osgoode Hall Law School, University of Ottawa Law School and Queens University Law School.

  •  R. v. Clayton Johnson
    • This Nova Scotia wrongful conviction case led to exoneration, and compensation, after a first degree murder conviction based on flawed forensic pathology.

  •  Philippines v Pacificador
    • This was an extradition request for an alleged political assassination, quashed on constitutional grounds, after the defence adduced extensive evidence about the mistreatment of co-defendants in the requesting state. Canada (Minister of Justice) v. Pacificador, 2002 CanLII 41595 (ON CA)

  •  R. v. Sauve and Trudel
    • The successful appeal of murder convictions in Canada’s longest jury trial helped establish Canadian law on the kind of jury warning required when discreditable accomplices testify at criminal trials. R. v. Sauvé, 2004 CanLII 9054 (ON CA

  •  R. v. Lindsay and Bonner
    • This appeal tested the constitutionality of Canada’s new ‘criminal organization’ statute.

  •  R. V. PERCIBALLI AND PORTANTE
    • In this case the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the important rule that the out-of-court statement of one accused does not constitute confirmatory evidence against another accused at a joint trial. R. v. Perciballi and Portante, 2002 SCC 51

  •  R. v. Truscott
    • This was a special reference by the Minister of Justice to the Ontario Court of Appeal of a 1959 murder conviction which was quashed by the Court after a lengthy evidentiary hearing and two weeks of legal argument. The case put to rest one of Canada’s longest and most controversial cases of wrongful conviction.  Truscott (Re), 2007 ONCA 575

  •  R. v. Walsh
    • This successful Ministerial review of a 33-year old conviction on behalf of a dying man turned on proof that key exculpatory evidence was not disclosed by the Crown at trial.

  •  R. v. Cain
    • The Minister of Justice overturned a 1987 murder conviction in 2004 based on new evidence. Article 

  •  R. v. Phillion
    • This case was referred to the Court of Appeal for Ontario by the Minister of Justice and led to the overturning of a wrongful conviction after 33 years of imprisonment. R. v. Phillion, 2009 ONCA 202

  •  R. v. Mahalingan
    • In this case, on a legally complex issue, the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed the application of issue estoppel in Canadian criminal law. R. v. Mahalingan, 2008 SCC 63

  •  R. v. Sarrazin and Jean
    • The Ontario Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a challenge to previous authority on how the issue of causation should be left to juries in murder cases and made new law on whether attempted murder is an included offence on a charge of murder. R. v. Sarrazin and Jean, 2011 SCC 54 of Ontario

  •  LSUC v. DeMerchant and Sukonick
    • In this case, the longest hearing in Law Society of Ontario history, two lawyers were cleared of charges of professional misconduct—an alleged conflict of interest—at a hearing of the LSUC Hearing Panel. Their exoneration was upheld on appeal. Law Society
      of Upper Canada v. DeMerchant, 2015 ONLSTA 6; Article

  •  R. v. Youvarajah
    • The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that facts admitted on a guilty plea of one accused cannot generally be admitted against a co-accused at a subsequent trial when they are repudiated by the first accused. R. v. Youvarajah, 2013 SCC 41

  •  R. v. Leighton Hay
    • A man who was convicted of murder based on spurious allegations that he had cut his hair to disguise himself was exonerated when fresh evidence established that hairs relied on by the Crown came from his beard, not his head.

  •  R. v. Ting
    • The Court of Appeal for Ontario established that a search conducted pursuant to a warrant for an incorrect address must be halted and a new warrant obtained.  R. v. Ting,
      2016 ONCA 57 (CanLII)

  •  R. V. Brown
    • This ground-breaking appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario established both the
      legitimacy of the constitutional defence of racial profiling and the mode of analysis for
      identifying it at trial. R. v. Brown, 2002 CanLII 49404 (ON SC);
      Article

  •  R. V. CARMICHAEL
    • A father was accused of first degree murder in the killing of his young son. He was found not criminally responsible and remanded to a psychiatric hospital from which he was later absolutely discharged. Article

  •  R. V. Yates
    • A wrongful conviction for sexual assault of a man against his former girlfriend was quashed as an unreasonable verdict. An acquittal was entered.

  •  R. V. MANASSERI
    • The Court of Appeal for Ontario closely analyzed very complex forensic neuropathology issues, including fresh evidence on appeal, in a case where a single blow was alleged to have caused death in an altercation at a bar. The Court concluded that the jury’s guilty verdict of murder was unsustainable and ordered a new trial. R. v. Manasseri , 2015 ONCA 3 (CanLII)

  •  R. V. MCDONALD
    • In an important judgment on the admissibility of evidence of prior discreditable conduct, the Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered a new trial for a man convicted of first degree murder in the death of a young woman. R. v. McDonald, 2017 ONCA 568

  •  R. V. MURRAY
    • The Court of Appeal concluded that a trial judge sitting on a first degree murder case had intervened so frequently throughout the case as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension that he was biased in favour of the Crown. The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered. R. v. Murray, 2017 ONCA 393 (CanLII)

  •  R. V. HOLBROUGH
    • A conviction for sexual assault was quashed on appeal on the basis that the trial judge had misapprehended the evidence of the complainant. A new trial was ordered.

  •  R. V. SKIFFINGTON
    • In 2001 Wade Skiffington was found guilty of the 1994 murder of his fiancée, Wanda Martin, following the employment of the Mr. Big undercover investigative technique. In 2019 he was released from custody after the Minister of Justice concluded his case might be a miscarriage of justice and a justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court granted him bail. The case remains before the Minsiter. R. v Skiffington, 2019 BCSC 178 (CanLII);  Article

  •  R. v. ASSOUN
    • On February 28, 2019 the Miister of Justice ordered a new trial in a 1999 conviction for murder after years of post-conviction litigation. The next day, Mr. Assoun was acquitted and exonerated in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court when the Crown acknowledged that on the evidence available, he could not be convicted by a reasonable jury. Video