Charges: Forcible Entry; Assault.
Issue: Given our client’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged incident, whether ther was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Upon considering the information provided and representations made by Mr. Gauthier, Crown counsel directed a stay of proceedings, brining the matter to an end. no criminal record.
Charge: Insurance Fraud Under $5,000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client’s rehabilitation and repayment of disputed claims, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges forwarded. No criminal record.
Charge: Mischief Over $5000.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove the value of damage alleged to have been caused by our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that they could not accurately prove the value of damage, and that our client had taken appropriate steps of self-rehabilitation. Crown elected to not approve any charges. No criminal record.
Charges: Assault; Mischief.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps that we guided our client through and advocating on her behalf that there was a reasonable self defence issue, whether there was a substantial likelihood of securing a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction. Ultimately Crown entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal conviction. No criminal record.
Charge: Insurance Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Given our client’s rehabilitation and repayment of the disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges were forwarded. No criminal record.
Charge: Mischief Under $5000.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Gauthier 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. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction resulting ultimately in Crown declining to approve a charge. No criminal record.
Charge: Possession of Stolen Property (motor vehicles).
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence that our client was aware that the vehicles that he possessed had been obtained by the commission of crimes.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through the police investigation. Ultimately, based on insufficient evidence, police declined to forward charges against our client. No prosecution. No criminal record.
Charge: Break and Enter.
Issue: Given our client’s mental health issues, whether a conditional discharge was an appropriate sentence for this drug store break in.
Result: Mr. Gauthier provided Crown counsel with information about our client which persuaded Crown to make a joint submission for a conditional discharge. No jail. No criminal conviction.
Charges: Sexual Assault; Theft of Motor Vehicle x2; Break & Enter.
Issue: Whether or not it was in the public interest to proceed with the trial considering the reluctance oft the Crown’s central witness and rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel that ultimately led to a stay of proceedings on all counts. No criminal record.
Charge: Mischief to Property.
Issue: After Mr. Gauthier was able to facilitate making restitution on our client’s behalf, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Results: Crown counsel accepted Mr. Gauthier’s representations and concluded the matter by entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
Charges: Breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing an indictable offence, wearing a mask for the purpose of committing an indictable offence, breach of release order
Issue: Whether it would be consistent with the principles of sentencing for our client to serve his sentence in the community.
Result: Mr. Johnston provided Crown counsel with information which, along with our client’s rehabilitative progress and good compliance with strict bail conditions, persuaded the Crown to seek a jail sentence of under two years for his role in a violent “home invasion”. After hearing Mr. Johnston’s submissions, the court agreed it would not be inconsistent with the principles of sentencing for our client to serve his sentence in the community instead of in custody. This was a significant result for our client as home invasion convictions typically result in lengthy jail sentences served in federal prison. No further time in custody.
A huge thanks to Michael Mines for getting this criminal charge brought to a fair and appropriate conclusion with a criminal charge being dropped. Michael knows his profession and is well versed in criminal law to seek the best possible outcome for an individual like me, who at 77 years, simply made an honest mistake. […]
Our client had taken responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty in Richmond Provincial Court where he was granted a conditional discharge. Upon being threatened and taunted by his roommate, our client kicked in the door to the roommate’s doo=r and held a meat cleaver to his throat. The Crown appealed sentence. At the sentence […]
