RECENT SUCCESSES
R. vs. D.H. - Vancouver Supreme Court
December 11, 2006
| Charge: | Aggravated Assault. |
| Issue: | Whether Mr. Mines' client, a pub doorman, acted in self defence in causing significant injuries to a patron during an altercation at the pub. |
| Result: | Not Guilty. Mr. Mines' client acquitted of all charges, including lesser included offences of assault causing bodily harm and common assault. (6 day jury trial). |
|
|
R. vs. W.B.L. - North Vancouver Provincial Court
December 01, 2006
| Charge: | Fraud Over $5,000; Uttering Forged Documents Over $5,000. |
| Issue: | Whether the accused mortgage broker, in a breach of trust situation, would be sentenced to jail. |
| Result: | Eighteen month Conditional Sentence Order. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court agreed that a jail sentence was not warranted. READ THE DECISION HERE. |
|
|
R. vs. K.L.H. - Vancouver Provincial Court
November 28, 2006
| Charge: | Production of a Controlled Substance; Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking. |
| Issue: | Whether police had reasonable grounds to search the dwelling; Whether the substance (cocaine) was necessarily possessed for trafficking. |
| Result: | After submissions by Mr. Mines, the Crown withdrew the charge and proceeded on the lesser charge of simple possession. Mr. Mines' client was sentenced to a fine (the Crown had originally sought 6 months jail) and a large amount of cash was returned to Mr. Mines' client. |
|
|
R. vs. D.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court
November 10, 2006
| Charge: | Possession of a Controlled Substance. |
| Issue: | Whether police had reasonable grounds to search Mr. Mines' client. |
| Result: | Not Guilty. The drug evidence was not admitted due to an illegal search by police. |
|
READ THE DECISION (PDF format) |
R. v. K.L.H. Vancouver Provincial Court
November 08, 2006
| Charge: | Production of a Controlled Substance; Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking. |
| Issue: | Whether police had reasonable grounds to search the dwelling; Whether the substance (cocaine) was necessarily possessed for trafficking. |
| Result: | After submissions by Mr. Mines to Crown Counsel, guilty plea to the lesser offence of simple possession. Mr. Mines' client was sentenced to a fine (the Crown had originally sought 6 months jail) and a large amount of cash was returned to Mr. Mines' client. |
|
|
R. vs. M.P. - Vancouver Provincial Court
October 27, 2006
| Charge: | Impaired Driving; Driving Over.08. |
| Issue: | Whether breath test readings and evidence of driving infractions would amount to a conviction. |
| Result: | Not Guilty. The trial judge, after hearing Mr. Mines' client testify about his drinking pattern and after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, had a reasonable doubt and dismissed both charges. |
|
READ THE DECISION (PDF format) |
B.R. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles
October 13, 2006
| Charge: | 90 day Administrative Driving Prohibition. |
| Issue: | Whether the police had provided the Superintendent's office with a reliable and accurate report setting out why Mr. Mines' client should be prohibited from driving. |
| Result: | Driving Prohibition revoked upon review. The adjudicator found that the police report did not disclose essential information, allowing Mr. Mines' client to resume driving. |
|
|
R. vs. L.V.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court
September 26, 2006
| Charge: | Criminal Harassment. |
| Issue: | Whether, given the circumstances, it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges. |
| Result: | After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, Crown Counsel withdrew the criminal charge upon Mr.Mines' client entering into a "Peace Bond." |
|
|
R. vs. T.E. - Vancouver Provincial Court
September 26, 2006
| Charge: | Assault. |
| Issue: | Whether in the circumstances of intervening in a fight between two children, Mr. Mines' client was guilty of assault. |
| Result: | Charge withdrawn upon entering into a Peace Bond. |
|
|
R. v. C.R. - New Westminster Provincial Court
September 20, 2006
| Charge: | Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking. |
| Issue: | Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client had knowledge of the drugs found in the car he was driving. |
| Result: | Crown Counsel withdrew the charge prior to trial. |
|
|
