Jump To Navigation

Vancouver Sexual Assault Charge Lawyers

British Columbia Sex Crimes Defence Law Firm

At Mines & Company, we have more than 20 years of experience defending sex assault and other sex crime charges. We represent clients in the Lower Mainland and throughout British Columbia. Our lawyers are skilled, hardworking and dedicated to achieving the best possible results in these serious and potentially life-changing cases.

When defending against sex assault and other sex crimes such as sexual interference, one of the key issues is the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses. Was alcohol or other intoxicants involved? Was there an element of consent? In cases where age of consent plays a role, was there misinformation about the age of the complainant? DNA evidence may also be a factor in these cases. We know the questions to ask, and we know how to get the answers necessary to get results.

 

In one of our recent successes (R. v. M.T. in New Westminster Provincial Court), our client was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference. The Crown sought a jail sentence. At trial, we obtained a six-month conditional sentence for our client, followed by probation. No jail.

Serious Consequences

Allegations of sexual assault carry serious consequences. Even if they do not lead to a conviction, the allegations alone carry a stigma that can impact your life. Recent amendments to the Criminal Code mean that sex assault convictions generally result in jail sentences. Offenders have to register in accordance with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA). Our goal is to get you through a charge with as little impact as possible.

Start With a Free Initial Consultation

To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver sexual assault charge lawyers, call 877-467-1804 or contact us via e-mail.

recent successes | click to view

  • April 7, 2014
    R. vs. G.G. - Burnaby RCMP Investigation 
    Charge: Sexual Interference; Sex Assault. 
    Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
    Result: We were able to successfully steer our client through the police investigation. Ultimately Crown Counsel declined to approve any charge.

  • April 4, 2014
    R. vs. S.K. et al - Surrey Provincial Court
    Charge: Assault x3. 
    Issue: Given various conflicting accounts of the incident, whether there was a substantial likelihood of criminal convictions. 
    Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay all charges upon our clients entering into Peace Bonds. No criminal records.

  • March 13, 2014
    R. vs. D.L. - Vancouver Provincial Court 
    Charge: Assault (Domestic). 
    Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge. 
    Result: Based on the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, we were able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.

  • February 28, 2014
    O.B. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles 
    Charge: Review of Driving Prohibition. 
    Issue: Whether it was reasonable for the Superintendent to issue our client a four month driving prohibition. 
    Result: We were able to persuade the Superintendent to reduce the prohibition from four months to one month.

  • February 24, 2014
    R. vs. M.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court 
    Charge: Driving While Prohibited. 
    Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to the mandatory 12 month minimum driving prohibition. 
    Result: We were able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a valid licence. Three month prohibition imposed.

  • February 4, 2014
    R. vs. A.S. - Coquitlam RCMP Investigation 
    Charge: Sexual Interference. 
    Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction. 
    Result: We were able to successfully steer our client through the investigation. No charges recommended.

  • January 24, 2014
    R. vs. T.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Arson
    Issue: Whether our client had the necessary mental capacity to be convicted of a criminal offence.
    Result: After hearing Mr. Johnson's submissions, the trial judge found that our client was Not Criminally Responsible on account of a Mental Disorder. No criminal record.

  • January 23, 2014
    R. vs. S.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Breaking and Entering; Participating in a Riot.
    Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
    Result: Notwithstanding our client's participation in the infamous Stanley Cup Riot, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

  • January 14, 2014
    R. vs. C.E. - Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
    Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate in this $36,000 emloyee fraud case.
    Result: Notwithstanding the breach of trust, the Court granted the "unusual result" of a suspended sentence with 12 months probation and a restitution order. No jail or house arrest.

  • January 9, 2014
    R. vs. G.S. - North Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Uttering a Threat.
    Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
    Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.

  • January 8, 2014
    R. vs. C.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
    Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
    Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program prior to any charge being approved. No criminal record.

  • December 19, 2013
    R. vs. A.O. - North Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Asaault.
    Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interst to proceed with the criminal charge.
    Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a complete stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

  • December 16, 2013
    R. vs. L.H. - North Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
    Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken and given the support of the complainant, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
    Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the trial commencing. No criminal record.

free initial consultation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an lawyer-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close