The vast majority of our clients’ cases are resolved favourably.
R. vs. T.E. ICBC Insurance Fraud Investigation
Issue: Whether our client actually intended to make a misleading or fraudulent automobile accident claim.
Result: After consulting with Mr. Gauthier, our client provided an explanation to the investigator that resulted in ICBC electing to not recommend any charges. No prosecution. No criminal record.
R. vs. R.L. – Courtenay Supreme Court Bail Review
Charges: Extortion, Possessing and distributing child pornography, Criminal harassment; Obstructing justice.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for our client to be detained in custody pending his trail.
Result: After considering Mr. Gauthier’s submissions, the Supreme Court Justice agreed to release our client on surety bail with a cash deposit.
R. vs. G.K. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court
Charges: Theft Under $5000 9shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able tp rovide information about our client’s circumstances and the circumstances of the offence that led to Crown deciding to not approve any charges. No prosecution. No criminal record.
R. vs. B.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: Assault with a weapon.
Issue: Given the relatively minor nature of the allegation, whether it was in the public interest for Crown to approve charges and to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines provided information to Crown counsel, culminating in Crown’s decision to not approve any charges byt, rather, to refer our client to the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.
R. vs. K.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court
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. A.L. – North Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Impaired Driving Causing Death; Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: What would be the appropriate sentence, considering the aggravating (high speed, MVA record & high BAC) and the mitigating factors (genuine remorse).
Result: Rather than a sentence in the range of 8 years, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel and the Court, to impose a sentence of 40 months jail, and a 7 year driving prohibiton.
R. vs. L.T. – Vancouver Provincial Court
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
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
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. T.J. – North Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether there was substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier provided information and made representations to Crown counsel which ultimately led Crown to agree that there was no reasonable likelihood of a conviction. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
R. vs. M.S. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation
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. I.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to a jail for this $10,000 fraud from his employer.
Result: Notwithstanding that our client had a previous criminal conviction for a similar breach of trust offence, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to not seek a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a term of house arrest. No jail.