Statements (66)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instanceOf |
legal case
|
| gptkbp:caseTypes |
Criminal law case.
|
| gptkbp:community_engagement |
Significant for public understanding of legal rights.
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_Canada
Judges provided detailed reasoning in their decision. |
| gptkbp:culturalHeritage |
Used in law schools for teaching criminal law.
|
| gptkbp:decidedBy |
The_Supreme_Court_ruled_on_the_issue_of_disclosure_of_evidence.
|
| gptkbp:discusses |
Frequently discussed in legal circles.
Often referenced in legal discussions. |
| gptkbp:gameFeatures |
gptkb:Robert_Morin
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
R v. Morin
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Influenced public perception of the justice system.
Influenced future cases regarding evidence disclosure. |
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Justice_Binnie
gptkb:Justice_Lamer gptkb:Justice_McLachlin gptkb:Justice_Sopinka Justice Arbour Justice Fish Justice Iacobucci Justice Major March 27, 1992. Reviewed the conduct of the trial. |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
The right to a fair trial includes the right to access evidence.
The principle of disclosure is vital for justice. |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
Defence lawyers play a crucial role in ensuring fair trials.
Defence counsel was provided. Crown_prosecutor_was_involved. |
| gptkbp:legalStatus |
Significant for the development of legal standards.
Part of the framework for criminal procedure. Part_of_Canadian_criminal_law. |
| gptkbp:notableFeature |
Cited in numerous subsequent cases.
Analyzed for its implications on justice. Examined the balance between the rights of the accused and the interests of justice. Analyzed for its implications on legal ethics. Examined for its impact on legal standards. Highlights the balance of rights in criminal law. Impacts how evidence is handled in trials. Impacts how trials are conducted. Impacts the rights of defendants. Implications for the prosecution's conduct. Involves issues of evidence and fair trial rights. Relevant for ongoing legal debates. Remains relevant in discussions of legal rights. Used as a case study in legal research. [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771 Considered essential for understanding criminal law. Considered_a_landmark_case_in_Canadian_law. Part_of_the_body_of_case_law_in_Canada. |
| gptkbp:outcome |
The appeal was allowed.
The decision was unanimous. Clarified the obligations of the prosecution. The ruling emphasized the importance of evidence. The ruling was seen as a victory for the accused. The ruling was celebrated by civil rights advocates. Reinforced the principle of transparency in legal proceedings. |
| gptkbp:precedent |
Serves as a precedent for future cases.
Set_a_precedent_for_the_disclosure_obligations_of_the_Crown. |
| gptkbp:reign |
The_Crown_has_a_duty_to_disclose_evidence.
|
| gptkbp:relatedPatent |
R_v._Khelawon.
R_v._McNeil. R_v._O'Connor. R_v._Stinchcombe. |
| gptkbp:respondsTo |
The Queen
|
| gptkbp:significance |
It established important precedents regarding the disclosure of evidence in criminal trials.
|
| gptkbp:year |
1992
|