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.


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 the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted and has served as counsel on a number of AIDWYC’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.

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

  •  R. v. 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. 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.

  •  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

  •  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. 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. 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.

  •  LSUC v. DeMerchant and Sukonick
    • In this case, the longest hearing in Law Society 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.

  •  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. 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.