Jump To Navigation

Law Firm Handling Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Charges

Vancouver Drug Charges Defence Lawyers

While drug trafficking charges require actual evidence of a sale, it is sometimes easier for police to charge people with Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (PPT).

People are charged with PPT, because they are allegedly in possession of a large quantity of drugs. Additional incriminatory evidence might include scales, packaging material, score sheets or cell phones. Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking is a serious offence. The penalties that come with a conviction are virtually the same as those that come with drug trafficking. Crown Counsel almost always seeks a jail sentence.

At Mines & Company, we know how to defend against these serious charges. We have more than 20 years of experience that we will put to work to benefit you.

 

In one of our recent successes (R. v. G.B. in Vancouver Provincial Court), our client was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking ecstasy and marijuana. The Crown initially sought jail time. We convinced the crime to reduce the charge to simple possession. The court granted a conditional discharge. No jail time.

Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking or Simple Possession?

What is the difference between simple possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking? This is a question of intent to sell, and intent can be argued. In the eyes of the Crown, a large quantity may be enough to imply that marijuana or another drug is going to be sold, even though the accused intended it for personal use. In these cases, one of our strategies involves negotiating charges down to the much less severe charge of simple drug possession.

Start With a Free Initial Consultation

To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers handling possession for the purpose of trafficking charges, 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