R v Burlingham
Supreme Court of Canada case
R v Burlingham, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206 is a leading decision on the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).
Background
Terrence Burlingham was arrested for the October 1984 murders of Denean Worms and Brenda Hughes in Cranbrook, British Columbia. Over a period of four days, he was interrogated by police despite his continued request to see a lawyer. During the interrogation, the police suggested that his parents would be hurt by delaying things and made disparaging remarks about the accused's lawyer. The police later offered to reduce the charge to second degree murder if Burlingham were willing to disclose the location of the murder weapon. Eventually, he agreed and took them to the location where he had hidden the gun that was used to kill Hughes. The crown, however, had not consented to the deal and did not follow through with the bargain. The trial judge found that the deal was an honest mistake. However, since Burlingham did not have access to a lawyer, his rights under section 10(b) were violated. Despite the violation, the murder weapon and several incriminating statements were still admitted.
The public source identifies “R v Burlingham” as supreme Court of Canada case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Burlingham, Supreme and Court.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “R v Burlingham”, the useful work is to connect “supreme Court of Canada case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 2, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7274187. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1995 and 1984.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “R v Burlingham”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow R v Burlingham primary sources, R v Burlingham archive and Burlingham research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “R v Burlingham”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “R v Burlingham” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.