Entries by Mike Mines

R. vs. M. G. – Sechelt RCMP investigation

Charges: Criminal harassment; Distributing intimate images without consent.

Issue: Whether the Crown could prove the circumstantial evidence they sought to rely on and whether jail was the  appropriate sentence.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to convince Crown counsel to not rely on much of the aggravating evidence and, on our client’s guilty plea to not seek a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions, the Court granted our client a suspended sentence with probation. No jail.

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

Charges: Criminal harassment; Distributing intimate images without consent.

Issue: Whether the Crown could prove the circumstantial evidence they sought to rely on and whether jail was the  appropriate sentence.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to convince Crown counsel to not rely on much of the aggravating evidence and, on our client’s guilty plea to not seek a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions, the Court granted our client a suspended sentence with probation. No jail.

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

Charges: Assault, Unlawful Confinement, Communicating for the Purpose of Obtaining Sexual Services.

Issues: 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 information to Crown counsel about our client’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged offences, as well as references to applicable legal principles, which persuaded Crown counsel to accept a guilty plea to the Assault charge alone and to direct stays of proceedings on the remaining counts. The Crown and court also agreed with Mr. Johnston that a conditional discharge was an appropriate sentence. No jail. No criminal record.

S.K.

Mr. Gauthier is incredibly responsible and truly cared about my girlfriend’s case and a speedy resolution. He helped us achieve a very satisfying result, Crown didn’t approve the charges. Overall, I would recommend him to anyone who is trying to find a criminal lawyer. Mr. Gauthier, please accept our deepest appreciation.
-S.K.

R. vs. J.S. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Assault (reduced to common assault.)

Issue: Whether Crown counsel could prove that our client touched the complainant for a sexual purpose.

Result: Mr. Mines was able tp persuade Crown counsel that our client did not intend to touch the complainant in a sexual manner. The Crown agreed to proceed on the lesser charge of common assault and, after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction. No jail. No sex offender registry.

R. vs. O.C. – Richmond RCMP Investigation

Charges: Theft (from Employer)) Investigation.

Issue: Whether the evidence was capable of reaching Crown counsel’s charge approval standard.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to the police investigator who, ultimately, elected not to request that any charges be approved. No criminal prosecution. No criminal