You are here: / / Assault and Threatening Charges Successes
  • False Creek at night

Our Successes

Assault and Threatening Charges

R. vs. J.Z. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

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.

R. vs. X.Z. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

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.

R. vs. K.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

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.

R. vs. L.T. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

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.

R. vs. L.W. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

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.

R. vs. L.W. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

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.

R. vs. M.S. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation

/in , /by

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.

R. vs. K.Y. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Assault by choking (x2); assault (x2); mischief under $5000.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the Court to enter a conviction against our client.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on only one count of common assault and to stay all remaining charges. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation for 12 months.No criminal conviction.

R. vs. T.F. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , , /by
Charges: Theft Under $5,000, Obstructing a Peace Officer, Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances.
Result: Mr. Johnston was able to direct our client to the appropriate community supports with respect to his rehabilitation. Given the positive change in our client’s circumstances, the sentencing judge accepted Mr. Johnston’s submission that a community based sentence was appropriate rather than the 60 jail sentence sought by the Crown. No jail.

R. vs. B.K. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Assault.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to make a joint submission without the necessity of our client being required to complete counselling. After hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions the court granted our client the discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. J.H. – Richmond Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Assault causing bodily harm, Uttering threats.

Issue: Whether it was appropriate for the court to grant our client a conditional discharge in this breach of trust, family member assault case.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through a course of significant rehabilitation, and over Crown’s contrary position, the Court agreed with Mr. Mines’ submission that it was appropriate to grant our client a conditional discharge.

R. vs. A.M. = Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Assault Causing Bodily Harm.

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.

Result: Mr. Johnston provided Crown counsel with information about our client’s circumstances, including his lack of prior criminal offending, his efforts at rehabilitation, and the fact that a conviction for either offence could result in the client’s deportation, an outcome which Mr. Johnston argued would be disproportionate to the seriousness of alleged offences. At the same time, Mr. Johnston pointed out weaknesses in the evidence against our client. The Crown directed stays of proceedings on both charges. No jail. No criminal record.

Title Here

Refine by Category