Entries by Mike Mines

,

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

Charges:  Assault (by choking); Mischief.

Issue: Given 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 provide information including our client’s counselling records to crown counsel and persuaded Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

,

R. vs. R.N. – RCMP Investigation

Charge: Possession of child pornography.

Issue: Whether police would be able to prove that our client was the only person that had access to the IP address on which the unlawful material was downloaded.

Result: Mr. Mines provided information to the police investigator that led the investigator to close the file with no charges recommended against our client. No jail. No criminal record.

,

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

Charge: Breach of Probation (no contact).

Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client intended to breach the “no contact” order that he was subject to.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that our client bumped into the complainant accidentally. Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No criminal record.

,

R. vs. T.X. – Insurance Fraud Investigation.

Charge: Assault (domestic).

Issue: In light of the rehabilitative steps our client completed, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with this child discipline/assault case.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to rely on the extraordinary circumstances of the case and our client’s commitment to ongoing family counselling. He was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

,

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

Charge: Assault (domestic).

Issue: In light of the rehabilitative steps our client completed, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with this child discipline/assault case.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to rely on the extraordinary circumstances of the case and our client’s commitment to ongoing family counselling. He was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

,

R. vs. S.L. – ICBC Investigation

Charges: Failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

Issue: Whether our client was obligated to provide a possibly incriminating  statement to the adjuster that could have led to criminal charges and a loss of  insurance coverage.

Result:  Mr. Mines was able to provide the required information to ICBC on our client’s behalf. No charges were  recommended. No loss of insurance coverage.

,

R. vs. S.M.A. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm.

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

Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed under the Motor Vehicle Act rather than the Criminal Code. After gearing Mr. Johnson’s submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a $100 fine and a 3 year driving prohibition. No criminal record. No jail.

,

R. vs. S.G. – Coquitlam RCMP Investigation

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the investigating RCMP member to not forward criminal charges after we settled the matter civilly on our client’s behalf. No criminal record.