R. vs. V.G. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether, given our representations to Crown counsel regarding our client’s lack of intention to steal, there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Crown agreed to stay the charge prior to the matter being set down for trial. No criminal record or any other sanction imposed.

R. vs. L.H. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures progream without any charge being approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. G.C. – West Vancouver Police Investigation

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Our client made restitution to the complainant and, in the circumstances, Mr. Mines was able to persuade police to treat the case as a civil file. No criminal charges were forwarded. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Theft Under $5000; Fraud Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether a jail sentence was warranted in the circumstances.
Result: Despite having a prior record for a similar offence, our client took rehabilitatve steps which allowed us to persuade Crown counsel to not seek  jail. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court granted her a six month conditional sentence with no house arrest or curfew.

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

Charge: Theft Under $5000; Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the Crown to continue with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Notwithstanding that our client was accused of assaulting the loss prevention officer that apprehended her for shoplifting, we were able to persuade Crown to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program. No charge approved. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Theft under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Based on the rehabilitative steps our client initiated, we were able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow her into the Alternative Measures Program without approving any charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.F. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Wheter it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to issue a Caution Letter without approving any criminal charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.V. – Civil Investigation

Charge: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether the complainant would forward charges to police.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate repayment of the misapproptiated funds without our client admitting civil or criminal liability. No charges forwarded or approved. No criminal or police record.

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

Charge: Fraud/Theft Over $5000.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines’ client would be sentenced to jail for this $150,000 investment fraud matter.
Result: Breach of trust notwithstanding, the Court agreed with our sentencing submission and imposed a 12 month conditional sentence. No jail.

R. vs. S.W. Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Theft/Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to jail for this breach of trust theft of $20,000.
Result: Based on the rehabilitative steps our client had taken prior to trial, Mr. Mines was acle to persuade the Crown to agree to a joint submission for a Conditional Sentence Order with a provision for counselling. No jail, curfew or house arrest.

R. vs. M.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence and the exceptional rehabilative steps our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures program and to stay the criminal charge. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Public Mischief; Obstructing Police.
Issue: Whether our client would be charged for providing a false/misleading statement to police.
Result: We were able to provide a new statement to police on our client’s behalf. File concluded with no criminal charges being forwarded.