RECENT SUCCESSES
R. vs. R.F. - North Vancouver Provincial Court
June 30, 2010
| Charge: | Impaired Driving / Over .08. |
| Issue: | Whether the breath readings could be explained by unabsorbed alcohol from a drink consumed minutes before the vehicle was stopped by police. |
| Result: | During the course of the trial, after considering Mr. Mines' representations, his client's evidence and expert scientific evidence, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record. No driving prohibition. |
|
|
R. vs. L.M. - Kamloops Provincial Court
March 30, 2010
| Charge: | Driving While Prohibited. |
| Issue: | Whether Mr. Mines' client had knowledge that he had been prohibited from driving. |
| Result: | Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a driver's licence. Rather than the mandatory jail sentence originally sought, Mr. Mines' client recived a $300 fine. No driving prohibition. No jail. |
|
|
R. vs. A.D. - North Vancouver Provincial Court
March 23, 2010
| Charge: | Driving While Prohibited. |
| Issue: | Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client had received notice of the driving prohibition. |
| Result: | Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a licence. His client received a fine and a 3 month driving prohibition instead of the 12 months originally sought. |
|
|
R. vs. F.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court
March 18, 2010
| Charge: | Impaired Driving; Refusing Breath Sample. |
| Issue: | Whether Mr. Mines' client had a lawful excuse for refusing to porvide a roadside screening breath sample. |
| Result: | Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that his client had a valid medical excuse. The case was resolved under the Motor Vehicle Act. No criminal record. No driving prohibition. |
|
|
D. C. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles
March 08, 2010
| Charge: | 90 Day Driving Prohibition. ("ADP") |
| Issue: | Whether the Report to Superintendent properly set out that Mr. Mines' client refused a breath sample demand. |
| Result: | After considering Mr. Mines' submissions, the Adjudicator revoked the driving prohibition, allowing his client to resume driving. |
|
|
R. vs. F. M. - North Vancouver Provincial Court
December 18, 2009
| Charge: | Impaired Driving; Over .08. |
| Issue: | Whether, given the circumstances, it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges. |
| Result: | Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client to resolve this matter persuant to a lesser charge under the Motor Vehicle Act. The court imposed the minimum fine and a four month driving prohibition. No criminal record. |
|
|
P.G. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles
November 25, 2009
| Charge: | 90 Day Adminisrative Driving Prohibition. |
| Issue: | Whether the police had proved that Mr. Mines' client had refused to provide a sample in accordance with a lawful breath demand. |
| Result: | The Adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that there was no lawful breath demand. Driving prohibition revoked. |
|
|
R. vs. T.D. - Vancouver Provincial Court
November 19, 2009
| Charge: | Impaired Driving; Refusing a Breath Sample. |
| Issue: | Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges. |
| Result: | Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings and proceed on the lesser charge under the Motor Vehicle Act. No criminal conviction. |
|
|
P. G. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles
October 05, 2009
| Charge: | 90 Day Driving Prohibition. |
| Issue: | Whether the police officer had proved that Mr. Mines' client had refused to provide a sample in compliance with a lawful breath demand. |
| Result: | Prohibition revoked. The Adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that there was no lawful breath demand. In the result, Mr. Mines' client was able to resume driving. |
|
|
V.L. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles
March 11, 2009
| Charge: | Driving Prohibition. |
| Issue: | Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to prohibit Mr. Mines' client from driving. |
| Result: | Mr. Mines was able to persuade the adjudicator to not prohibit his client from driving, but to instead place him on probation. |
|
|
