fbpx

PHILIP CAMPBELL

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

Philip Campbell is a founding partner of 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

Mr. Campbell 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 Innocence Canada 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 represented the CLA as an intervenor in several important cases, including R. v. Hart, a judgment which established a new test for the admission of evidence acquired pursuant to “Mr. Big” undercover operations.

He has acted as counsel on cases that shape Canadian law in a number of areas including racial profiling; double jeopardy; the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal; the corroboration of unreliable witnesses; extradition to countries that abuse human rights; the mental state required to prove sexual assault; the use of hearsay evidence; the definition of planning and deliberation; the appellate test for unreasonable verdicts; the law of unconstitutional search and seizure; the legal standard for constructive murder; judicial bias and interference; conflict of interest on the part of lawyers; breach of trust by public officials; and release on bail of the wrongly convicted. His clients are from all strata of society, from impoverished youth charged with drug offences, to bikers and gang members charged with murder, to police officers and lawyers charged with violations of duty.

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.

In his free time, Mr. Campbell rides his motorcycle with a club known as the Illegals, scuba dives, plays ping pong and poker, meets monthly with his book club, and spends time with family and friends at his vacation home on the Greek Island of Paros.

  •  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.

      Case Law

      Article

  •  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. 

      Case Law

      Article

  •  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. 

      Case Law

      Article

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

      Case Law

      Article

  •  R. V. PERCIBALLI AND PORTANTE
  •  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. 

      Case Law

      Article

  •  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.

      Article

  •  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. 

      Case Law

      Article

  •  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. 

      Case 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. 

      Case Law

  •  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.

      Case Law

      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.

      Case Law

      Article

  •  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.

      Case Law

  •  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. 

      Case Law

  •  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.

      Case Law

      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.

      Case Law

      Article

  •  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.

      Case Law

      Article

  •  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.

      Case Law

      Article

  •  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.

      Case Law

      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

  •  R. v. SUREN
    • The accused was tried in 2018 for the first degree murder of his wife and six counts of attempted murder in relation to a fire he set in his family home. The jury at trial, after five days of deliberation, could not reach a verdict on the murder charge and one attempted murder count but acquitted the accused of five counts of attempted murder. He was subsequently permitted by the Crown to plead guilty to manslaughter.

  •  R. v. KELSIE
  •  R. v. S.K.
    • A youth who killed an officer by unlawfully driving a vehicle that rolled over was convicted at trial of first degree murder. In 2019, the Court of Appeal for Ontario directed a new trial on the basis of legal error in the jury instruction. The client was then permitted to plead guilty to manslaughter for a non-custodial sentence.

      Case Law

      Article

      Article

  •  R. v. HAFIZI
    • A young man was convicted of first degree murder in a stabbing after an altercation in a bar. In 2019, the Court of Appeal for Ontario concluded that there was no evidence on which to base a finding of planning and deliberation and substituted a verdict of second degree murder. Mr. Hafizi’s parole ineligibility was subsequently reduced from 25 years to 11 years.

      Case Law

      Article

  •  R. v. WALKER
    • A first degree murder conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered on appeal because the trial judge unfairly expressed his opinion to the jury on a factual matter of importance to the case—whether a videotape showed a handgun in the possession of the accused. The Crown sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada but was refused.

      Case Law

  •  R. v. BOLAND
    • A man who shot his wife outside their home, following an argument, was charged with first degree murder. Following a contested preliminary inquiry, the presiding judge ruled that the evidence supported only a charge of second degree murder, to which the accused later pled guilty for the minimum period of parole ineligibility.

      Article

      Article

  •  R. v. R.V.
    • A man was convicted of two sexual offences but acquitted of sexual assault on the same allegations. The Court of Appeal, in 2019, quashed the two convictions and entered acquittals on the basis that the verdicts were inconsistent and unreasonable. The Crown has appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

      Case Law

      Article

  •  R. v. CAMPBELL and DAVID
    • Two men were convicted of first degree murder by planning and deliberation in a public shooting. In 2020, the Court of Appeal for Ontario quashed the first degree murder convictions on the basis that they were unreasonable and substituted convictions for second degree murder.

      Case Law

  •  R. v. DARNLEY
    • An OPP officer was convicted of two counts of breach of trust for disclosing confidential investigative information to her fiancé. The Court of Appeal for Ontario, in 2020, quashed both convictions, entering an acquittal on one and directing a new trial on the other based on errors related to the law of entrapment and the direction of the jury on the principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Case Law

      Article