RECENT SUCCESSES
R. vs. A.S.E. - Richmond Provincial Court
April 07, 2009
| Charge: | Trafficking (cocaine). |
| Issue: | Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client was a party to the offence. |
| Result: | Not Guilty. The trial judge agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that his client was not aware of the drug transaction that occured in the back of his car. Charge dismissed. |
|
|
R. vs. J.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court
February 24, 2009
| Charge: | Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Cocaine, Ecstasy, Heroin, Marijuana) x 2. |
| Issue: | Whether Mr. Mines client would be sentenced to jail for these "dial a dope" offences. |
| Result: | Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that one of the offences involved an illegal search which resulted in Crown entering a stay of proceedings. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on the remaining charge, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines' client a Conditional Sentence to be served in the community. No jail. |
|
|
R. vs. C. H. - Vancouver Provincial Court
December 29, 2008
| Charge: | Possession of Cocaine; Obstruct Police. |
| Issue: | Whether, in the circumstances of the arrest, Mr. Mines' clients's Charter rights were violated. |
| Result: | Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that the arrest was unlawful. In the result the Crown withdrew both charges. No criminal record. |
|
|
R. vs. N.M. - Richmond Provincial Court
September 16, 2008
| Charge: | Trafficking Cocaine. |
| Issue: | Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to be sentenced to jail. |
| Result: | After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions in this "dial-a-dope" case, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines' client a Conditional Sentence to be served in the community. No jail. |
|
|
R. vs. C.D. - North Vancouver Provincial Court
September 12, 2008
| Charge: | Production of a Controlled Substance (Marijuana). |
| Issue: | Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to be sentenced to jail. |
| Result: | After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines' client a Conditional Sentence to be served in the community. No jail. |
|
|
R. vs. V. Y. - Vancouver Provincial Court
August 28, 2008
| Charge: | Trafficking; PPT (Ecstacy). |
| Issue: | Whether it was appropriate for the Court to sentence Mr. Mines' client to jail. |
| Result: | Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel not to rely on a portion of the drug evidence that was improperly seized and, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court imposed a community based sentence. |
|
|
R. vs. S.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court
July 23, 2008
| Charge: | Possesion for the Pupose of Trafficking (Ecstacy) |
| Issue: | Whether Mr. Mines' client's Charter rights were breached upon being searched and whether Crown would be granted an adjournment when a police witness did not attend the trial. |
| Result: | After hearing Mr. Mines submissions, the trial judge declined to grant the adjournment and Crown Counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record. |
|
|
R. vs. D. D, - Vancouver Provincial Court
March 12, 2008
| Charge: | Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Marijuana). |
| Issue: | Whether the police had legal authority to arrest and search Mr. Mines' client. |
| Result: | Not Guilty. Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge that his client's Charter rights were violated. The evidence obtained from the illegal search was excluded. |
|
|
R. vs. C. W. - Vancouver Provincial Court
December 13, 2007
| Charge: | Trafficking (Ecstacy) |
| Issue: | Whether, given the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of Mr. Mines' client, it was in the public interest to proceed. |
| Result: | Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program and after his client satisfied the conditions Crown withdrew the charge. |
|
|
R. vs. B.L.T. - Vancouver Provincial Court
July 12, 2007
| Charge: | Production of Marijuana; Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking. |
| Issue: | Whether the search warrant was valid. |
| Result: | Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge agreed that the warrant had been issued on the basis of misleading information. The search warrant was set aside, the evidence of the grow operation was excluded, and Mr. Mines' client was therefore able to avoid conviction and forfeiture of his residence to the Crown. |
|
READ THE DECISION (PDF format) |
