R. vs. M.J. – Atlin Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Possession of Prohibited Firearms (x4); Smuggling; Deceptive Statement to Customs.

Issue: Whether jail was the appropriate sentence for our client who brought firearms and ammunition into Canada unlawfully.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to present Crown counsel with information about our client’s circumstances and the circumstances of the offence so that Crown revised its sentencing position to not seek jail. After hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a substantial fine and did not impose a firearm prohibition. No jail.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Pointing a firearm; assault with a firearm.

Issue: Given the context of the offence and our client’s remorse and rehabilitation, whether a jail sentence was appropriate.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to direct our client through a course of counselling and was able to persuade Crown counsel to make a joint recommendation for a community based sentence rather than the 2 year jail sentence that was Crown’s original sentencing position. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court granted our client an 18 month conditional sentence, followed by 12 months probation. No jail.

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

/in , /by

Charge: Assault with a weapon.

Issue: Given the relatively minor nature of the allegation, whether it was in the public interest for Crown to approve charges and to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Mines provided information to Crown counsel, culminating in Crown’s decision to not approve any charges byt, rather, to refer our client to the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

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. T.A. – West Shore RCMP investigation

/in , /by

Charge: Assault (Domestic).

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the Crown to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier provided information to Crown Counsel that convinced them not to approve charges against the client. No criminal prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.S. – Richmond Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Breach of Probation (from weapons charge).

Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution of our client who had failed to complete a course of court ordered counselling.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through an equivalent course of counselling. Upon completion, Crown counsel stayed the proceedings. No criminal record.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Assault with a weapon; assault causing bodily harm.

Issue: Given elements of provocation, a potential defence of self-defence, and our client’s background as a vulnerable woman, whether it was in the public interest for Crown to continue the criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings upon our client successfully completing the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Assault with a weapon (x3); unlawful confinement;

Issue:  Given the random and bizarre acts of our client, whether it was appropriate for the Court to release our client from custody pending the conclusion of the charges.

Result: Notwithstanding that Crown was strongly opposed to our client’s release, Mr. Gauthier was able to facilitate a release plan that satisfied the Court. After hearing our submissions, the Court released our client from custody on rehabilitative conditions.

R. vs. M.S. – Ganges Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Firearms Prohibition Application.

Issue: Whether the RCMP investigation was lawful and whether the application to prohibit our client from possessing firearms was reasonable.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that in the circumstances it would be disproportionate to prohibit our client from possessing firearms. Crown application withdrawn and the seized firearm was returned to our client.

R. vs. S.L. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Possession of a loaded prohibited firearm; Unlawful storage of firearms.

Issue: Whether the warrant used to search our client’s premises was lawful; whether our client posed a risk to re-offend.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to point to potential flaws in the warrant and police search which culminated in Crown’s agreement to not pursue their original sentencing position of a 2-3 year jail sentence. Rather, the court accepted a joint submission of a 12 month conditional sentence with a curfew for the first six months. No jail.

R. vs. M.K.A. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , , /by

Charges: Assault with a Weapon (x2).

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

Result: Mr. Mines was able to direct our client through a course of rehabilitative counselling, and after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the trial judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

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

/in , /by

Charge: Possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client did anything more than briefly touch the gun while he a passenger in a vehicle.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge that our client’s actions were minimal and that his youthful age and lack of record allowed him to be granted  a conditional discharge. No conviction. No jail.