R. vs. D.H.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault causing bodily harm; mischief to property under $5000.

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction on the assault causing bodily harm charge.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the assault causing bodily harm charge. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court granted our client a conditional discharge and ordered restitution in relation to the smart phone that was damaged. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. W.J.M. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Upon presenting Crown counsel with a psychological report regarding our client’s low risk to commit a similar act, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to not approve any criminal charges whatsoever. No prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.A. – Vancouver Provincial Court (DCC)

Charges: Assault; Assault Peace Officer (x2).

Issue: Given the circumstances of our client being severely intoxicated and acting out f character, whether a criminal conviction was appropriate.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with our client’s background information resulting in a joint recommendation to the Court for a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

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

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.

R. vs. K.C. – Delta Police Investigation

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.

R. vs. K.J. – Surrey Provincial Court

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.

R. vs. Z.A. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation

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.

R. vs. K.L. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.