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

  • June 14, 2013
    R. vs. T.X.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
    Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
    Result: Upon our client taking restorative steps on her own, we were able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve any charge. No criminal record.

  • June 6, 2013
    R. vs. GB.   -  Vancouver Criminal Court
    Charge: Uttering a Threat.
    Issue: Whether ther was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
    Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to stay the charge upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

  • June 5, 2013
    R. vs. D.S.  -  Richmond RCMP Investigation
    Charge: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
    Issue: Whether, given the civil settlement of the alleged misappropriation of over $60,000 of property, the matter would proceed with criminal charges being laid.
    Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a $35,000 civil settlement. No charges approved. No criminal record.

  • June 4, 2013
    R. vs. S.D.  -  Richmond Provincial Court
    Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
    Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was necessary to proceed with the criminal charge.
    Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to issue a Caution to his client. No charge approved. No criminal record.

  • June 3, 2013
    R. vs. P.L.  -  Port Coquitlam Provincial Court
    Charge: Fraud Over $5000 (x14).
    Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to the 24 - 30 month jail sentence sought by the Crown in this $270,000 fraud case.
    Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted his client a 2 year conditional sentence. No jail.

  • May 22, 2013
    R. vs. M.C.  -  Vancouver Criminal Court
    Charge: Assault (domestic).
    Issue: Whether the evidence would result in a conviction.
    Result: After the complainant clarified her evidence, we wereable to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve any criminal charge nor to seek a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

  • May 8, 2013
    R. vs. Y.W.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Assault (domestic).
    Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
    Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the charge upon our client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

  • May 7, 2013
    R. vs. L.A.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
    Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
    Result: Upon our client taking restorative steps on her own, we were able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve any charge in this case. 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