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

/in , /by

Charges: Assault by choking (x2); assault (x2); mischief under $5000.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the Court to enter a conviction against our client.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on only one count of common assault and to stay all remaining charges. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation for 12 months.No criminal conviction.

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

/in , , /by
Charges: Theft Under $5,000, Obstructing a Peace Officer, Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances.
Result: Mr. Johnston was able to direct our client to the appropriate community supports with respect to his rehabilitation. Given the positive change in our client’s circumstances, the sentencing judge accepted Mr. Johnston’s submission that a community based sentence was appropriate rather than the 60 jail sentence sought by the Crown. No jail.

R. vs. B.K. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Assault.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to make a joint submission without the necessity of our client being required to complete counselling. After hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions the court granted our client the discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. v. R.L. – New Westminster Supreme Court

/in , /by

Charge: Sexual Assault.

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to continue with the prosecution in this retrial after a deadlocked jury decision.

Result: upon considering all of Mr. Mines’ representations, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.H. – Richmond Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Assault causing bodily harm, Uttering threats.

Issue: Whether it was appropriate for the court to grant our client a conditional discharge in this breach of trust, family member assault case.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through a course of significant rehabilitation, and over Crown’s contrary position, the Court agreed with Mr. Mines’ submission that it was appropriate to grant our client a conditional discharge.

R. vs. B.J. – Downtown Community Court

/in , , /by

Charge: Theft of property of a value not exceeding $5,000

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

Result: Mr. Johnston identified weaknesses in the available video evidence which persuaded the Crown to direct a stay of proceedings on the charge. No jail. No criminal record.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Assault Causing Bodily Harm.

Issue: 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 Crown counsel with information about our client’s circumstances, including his lack of prior criminal offending, his efforts at rehabilitation, and the fact that a conviction for either offence could result in the client’s deportation, an outcome which Mr. Johnston argued would be disproportionate to the seriousness of alleged offences. At the same time, Mr. Johnston pointed out weaknesses in the evidence against our client. The Crown directed stays of proceedings on both charges. No jail. No criminal record.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Uttering Threats x3; Criminal Harassment; Breach of Release Order (domestic).

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

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that it was more appropriate to deal with these matters in the context of Family Court. Ultimately Crown did not approve the uttering threats and criminal harassment charges and Mr. Gauthier persuaded Crown that there was no public interest in prosecuting the breach charge and to enter a stay of proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.L. – Terrace RCMP Investigation

/in , /by

Charges: Assault.

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

Result: Mr. Mines presented additional information to Crown counsel which resulted in Crown  declining to approve any charge.  No criminal record.

R. vs. O.P. – Victoria Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Voyeurism; Criminal harassment.

Issue: Whether Crown could prove that our client actually recorded and distributed images without consent of the complainant.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed only on the criminal harassment charge. After hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions, the trial judge granted our client a conditional sentence order with a curfew for two months. No jail.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Indecent Act; Assault With a Weapon; Possessing of a Weapon for Dangerous Purpose (x2); Robbery; Uttering Threats; Theft of Property of a Value not Exceeding $5,000.

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with prosecution of all counts; whether a jail sentence was appropriate.

Result: Mr. Johnston identified weaknesses in the evidence which persuaded the Crown there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on the Indecent Act charge.  Mr. Johnston persuaded Crown counsel  to resolve the case on three of the remaining counts and to stay all remaining charges. After hearing Mr. Johnston’s submissions regarding our client’s personal circumstances and his significant rehabilitation efforts,  the Court agreed to release our client from custody and to place him on a probation order with conditions supporting his rehabilitation. No further jail time.

R. vs. M.G. – RCMP Investigation

/in , /by

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.