R. vs. G.L. – RCMP Investigation

Charges: Importing Child Pornography.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines’ client had knowledge of the material found by customs officers on a computer hard drive that he brought into Canada.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through the investigation with no charge being recommended by police.

R. vs. J.B. – Surrey RCMP Investigation

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether the complainant had consented to the sexual act.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through the police investigation which concluded with no criminal charge being recommended to Crown Counsel.

R. vs. B.B. – Vancouver Police

Charge: Sex Assault; Sexual Interference
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove the identity of the perpetrator of a sexual assault.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to guide his client through the police investigation which, in the result, ended with Crown Counsel concluding the file with no charges being approved. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for Mr. Mines’ client to have believed that the complainant had consented to the sexual act.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines’ representations on behalf of his client, the Crown agreed to proceed by way of a Peace Bond and to stay the criminal charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.B. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Interference (x3).
Issue: Whether, given the historical nature of the offence and the circumstances of Mr. Mines’ client, it was necessary for the Crown and court to consider a jail sentence.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions on his client’s behalf, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines’ client a suspended sentence and placed him on probation for 15 months. Crown Counsel stayed two of the charges.

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

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to release Mr. Mines’ client from custody.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the Provincial Court Judge to release his client on surety bail.

R. vs. D. N. – Williams Lake Provincial Court

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.

R. vs. M.T. – New Westminster Provincial Court

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.

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

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.

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

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.

R. vs. H. H. – Surrey Provincial Court

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.

R. vs. T.A. – Vancouver Police Investigation

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.