R. v. M.A.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

,
Charge: Possession of fentanyl and carfentanil for the purposes of trafficking.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnston provided to Crown counsel regarding our client’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged offence, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnston was able to persuade the Crown that there were issues with respect to the Crown’s evidence such that it was unlikely our client would be convicted at trial, and that there was insufficient public interest in continuing to prosecute our client in any case. Given this informaton, the Crown directed a stay of proceedings on the charge. No criminal record.
/by

R. vs. M.G. – RCMP Investigation

,

Charges: Possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood that Crown could establish that our client was a willing participant in the alleged drug trafficking scheme.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information and persuade police to not seek any criminal charges against our client. No charges were approved. Our client’s vehicle was retuned. No criminal record.

/by

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

,

Charges: Aggravated assault; possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Issue: Whether it was reasonable for police to seek detention and forfeiture of our client’s vehicle as “proceeds of crime.”

Result: Mr. Mines was able to successfully persuade the RCMP officer that our client did not intend for her vehicle used as an “instrument of unlawful activity” and to return the vehicle to her. No forfeiture.

/by

R. vs. J.F. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

,

Charges: Possession for the purpose of Trafficking; Obstruct Police.

Issue: Whether the cocaine found by police was intended for sale or for personal use, and whether it was in the public interest to prosecute.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel which resulted in Crown agreeing to drop all charges upon our client successfully completing the Alternative Measures Program.

/by

R. vs. S.S. – Nelson Provincial Court

,

Charges: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (MDMA, Ketamine, Cocaine).

Issue: Given the nature of the search and seizure, the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, and given the recent changes to the mandatory minimum jail sentence for this offence, whether our client was eligible for a non-custodial sentence.

Result: Notwithstanding the large amount of drugs involved (approximately 2 kgs), Mr. Johnson was able to persuade the court to impose a conditional sentence of two years, less one day. No jail.

/by

R. v. S.W. – Courtenay RCMP Investigation

,

Charges: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking.

Issue: Whether the search of the vehicle and our client was lawful.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the investigation and made representations to police that the search was unlawful. Police declined to recommend any  charges. No criminal record.

/by

R. vs. S.F. – Provincial Court of Newfoundland

,

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Marijuana).

Issue: Whether it there was a substantial likelihood of obtaining a conviction.

Result: Upon considering Mr. Johnson’s representations, Crown counsel concluded that there was no longer a likelihood of conviction. Crown withdrew the charge, bringing the matter to an end. No criminal record.

/by

R. vs. C.B. – Vancouver Police Investigation

,

Charge: Possession of proceeds of crime; drug investigation.

Issue: Whether there was any lawful authority to arrest our client and seize funds from him.

Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade the investigating officer that there was no basis to search our client and to return the $2400 cash that he had seized. No charges approved. Not criminal record.

/by

R. vs. S.S. – Nelson Provincial Court

,

Charge: Possession for the purpose of trafficking.
Issue: Whether, given the large quantity of cocaine and other drugs found upon execution of the search warrant, whether it was appropriate for the court to release our client on bail.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions on our client’s behalf, the Court agreed to release our client on surety bail with strict conditions.

/by

R. vs. T.P. – Surrey Provincial Court

,

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (heroin, fentanyl, cocaine).
Issue: Whether our youthful client would be sentenced to the 2 year jail sentence sought by Crown counsel.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to direct our client through a successful rehabilitation program. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court agreed that there were “special circumstances” that permitted a sentence below the usual range of 18-36 months imprisonment for this offence. Our client was granted a suspended sentence and was placed on probation for 3 years. No jail.

/by

R. vs. G.D. – Vancouver Provincial Court

,

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (MDMA).
Issue: Whether the vehicle search was lawful; Whether it was appropriate for the Court to grant the Crown’s adjournment application of the trial.
Result: Mr. Mines opposed the Crown’s adjournment application and the court refused to grant it. Crown entered a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No jail; no criminal record.

/by

R. vs. M.P. – Agassiz RCMP Investigation

,

Charge: Production of illicit cannabis oil.
Issue: Whether there were reasonable grounds to proceed with a criminal prosecution and a civil forfeiture application.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to steer our client through the police investigation and, in the result, no charges were forwarded to Crown nor was the matter referred to the Director of Civil Forfeiture. We were able to get the 2 recreational vehicles that were seized returned to our client. No criminal record.

/by