Assault and Threatening Charges
Charges: Aggravated Assault; Breach of Probation.
Issue: Given the context of the offences and our client’s rehabilitative efforts, whether a jail sentence was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Johnston informed Crown counsel of the significant rehabilitative progress our client had made since the offence dates and persuaded Crown to not pursue the 16 month jail sentence they had been seeking. Crown agreed to proceed on the less serious charge of assault causing bodily harm and to stay the remaining charges. After hearing Mr. Johnston’s submissions, the court granted our client a one year conditional sentence sentence and two years of probation. This was a particularly positive outcome for our client, who had a prior conviction for a similar offence. No jail.
Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges for this alleged assault that occured in the context of a recreational sporting activity.
Result: Mr. Mines provided information to the police investigator on our clients’s behalf. Ultimately police decided to not recommend any criminal charges. No prosecution; no criminal record.
Charge: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Given the circumstances of the alleged offence and the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the proceedings and to resolve this matter with a 12 month Peace Bond. No criminal record.
Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether the allegations of this domestic allegation would meet the Crown counsel’s charge approval standard.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel that ultimately led to Crown declining to approve any criminal charge. Our client’s Undertaking was withdrawn, permitting him to resume contact with his spouse. No criminal record.
Issue: Given the information we provided to Crown counsel on behalf of our client, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able tp persuade Crown counsel that this matter did not meet the charge approval standard. Croen elected to not approve any charges. No prosecution. No criminal record.
Charges: Assault with a weapon.
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence and the rehabilitative steps that we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge in this case involving our client not obeying a traffic flag person and assaulting her with her car.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown and the Court to grant our client a conditional discharge. Our client was placed on probation with a term to perform community service work.
Charges: s.810 Recognizance (Peace Bond) Application.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence for the crown to prove that the complainant’s fear was reasonable.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown that helped persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No Peace Bond was imposed on our client.
Charges: Assault (x3)
Issue: Whether our client could be released on bail for a third time, given the Crown’s concerns about his potential to breach court orders and commit further offences.
Result: Mr. Johnston worked with our client to develop a plan which persuaded the court and the Crown to consent to his release on reasonable conditions, even though our client was alleged to have committed these offences while already on bail and/or probation, and even though our client had recent convictions for similar offences.
Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether the identification evidence was strong enough to support a conviction of our client, who allegedly assaulted and threatened a taxi driver.
Result: Upon Mr. Gauthier pointing out weakness in the evidence relating to identification of the suspect, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
Charges: Aggravated Assault; Breach of Undertaking; Assault police officer; Mischief to property.
Issue: Given the seriousness of the facial injuries to the complainant and the ensuing assault of the arresting police officer, whether a lengthy prison sentence was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through an extensive program of rehabilitation and, after gearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions in a contested hearing, the Court granted our client a conditional sentence of only 3 months, followed by 2 years probation. No jail.
Charges: Aggravated assault; Assault police officer; assault.
Issue: Notwithstanding that the usual range of sentence is approximately 3 years for aggravated assault, whether a conditional sentence (house arrest) was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Gauthier persuaded Crown to jointly recommend a non-jail sentence. After hearing our submissions, the trial judge granted our client a 3 month conditional sentence, followed by a 2 year probation order.
Charges: Assault, mischief under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the investigating RCMP officer to allow our client tp apologize to the complainant through Restorative Justice. Police did not seek to have any criminal charges approved. No criminal record.