Charge: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Given the circumstances, what was the appropriate sentence for Mr. Mines’ client who had a sexual relationship with a minor.
Result: The Crown had sought a sentence of one year jail. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions on his client’s behalf, the trial judge agreed that a three month intermittent sentence was appropriate, allowing Mr. Mines’ client to maintain his employment.
Charge: Attempted Murder; Aggravated Sex Assault.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines’ client was suffering from a mental disorder.
Result: After a five week Supreme Court trial, the judge accepted Mr. Mines’ submissions and found his client Not Criminally Responsible on account of mental disorder.
Charge: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines’ client would be sentenced to jail in this breach of trust situation.
Result: Crown Counsel sought a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions on the Sex Assault charge, the trial judge granted Mr Mines’ client a six month Conditional Sentence, followed by probation. No jail.
Charge: Kidnapping; Unlawful Confinement.
Issue: What the appropriate sentence would be in the circumstances. The Crown sought a 2.5 – 3 year Federal Penitentiary sentence.
Result: Mr. Mines negotiated a disposition agreement with Crown Counsel. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions on his client’s behalf, the trial judge imposed a 9 month Provincial sentence. No probation.
Charge: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: Upon considering Mr. Mines’ representations and considering the strength of its case, Crown Counsel decided to enter a Stay of Proceedings prior to the trial date. No criminal record.
Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest and whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the criminal charge upon his client entering into a s.810 Recognizance (“Peace Bond”). No criminal record.
Charge: Importing Obscene Material into Canada; Possession of Child Pornography.
Issue: Whether, pending the investigation, it was appropriate for police to return Mr. Mines’ client’s seized passport to him.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade police to return his client’s passport.
Charge: Internet Luring.
Issue: Whether the police investigator had sufficient evidence to recommend a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide the investigator with information on his client’s behalf which resulted in no criminal charge being approved.
Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether police would recommend that charges be approved.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through a police investigation which ultimately resulted in no charges being laid. No criminal record.
Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether police would recommend that charges be approved.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through a police investigation, which ultimately resulted in no charges being laid. No criminal record.
Charge: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines’ representations and the lack of any corroborating forensic evidence, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.
Charge: Possession of Child Pornography; Importing Obscene Material.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines’ client had knowledge of the contents of DVDs that he purchased in China and brought into Canada.
Result: After making submissions to police, Canada Border Service investigators and Crown Counsel, Mr. Mines’ client was not charged with any criminal or Customs Act offence. No record.
Gauthier & Mines Criminal Lawyers
The Marine Building355 Burrard Street, Suite 1550
Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2G8
Google Map
T: 604 688 1460
F: 604 687 3097
