Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×

Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.

  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • Chapter 15 - The ethical lawyer

  • from Part 5 - Profession and community
  • Anthony Marinac, James Cook University, North Queensland, Caroline Hart, University of Southern Queensland, Rhianna Chisholm, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Jennifer Nielsen, Southern Cross University, Australia, Asmi Wood, Australian National University, Canberra, Adrian Evans, Monash University, Victoria, Sarah McKibbin, University of Southern Queensland
  • Book:
    Learning Law
    Published online:
    19 November 2020
    Print publication:
    07 October 2020, pp 393-415

  • Summary

    What is ethics and, in any case, why worry about it? What has ethics got to do with law, anyway? Surely, if an activity or decision is legal, who cares if it is ethical or not? And why do I have to learn about morals and ethics before I know much law? These questions might seem to have obvious answers — and you may think that they all lead in the one direction: that ethics are not important. But you would be wrong. Many lawyers have found this out too late and paid a price.

  • Protecting Research Confidentiality via the Wigmore Criteria: Some Implications of Parent and Bruckert v The Queen and Luka Rocco Magnotta

  • Ted Palys, David MacAlister
  • Journal:
    Canadian Journal of Law & Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société / Volume 31 / Issue 3 / December 2016
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 November 2016, pp. 473-493
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • There have been two significant legal challenges to research confidentiality in Canada. The first occurred because of a Coroner’s subpoena, with the researcher invoking the Wigmore criteria and winning a researcher-participant privilege. A second case saw two University of Ottawa researchers served with a search warrant for the tape and transcript of an interview they had conducted years earlier with an individual subsequently accused of murder. The researchers defended research confidentiality in Quebec Superior Court, winning a qualified researcher-participant privilege in the process. This article discusses implications of the court’s decision for researchers, research ethics boards, and universities for the future defence of research confidences. All have a role to play in designing research that anticipates the court’s evidentiary requirements when a claim of privilege is invoked to help ensure future jurisprudence is as favourable to research participants and as respectful of academic freedom as possible.