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.

R. vs. E.Z. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose.

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a criminal conviction.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown that there were flaws in the evidence and that a conviction was highly unlikely. No charges were approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.B. – Surrey Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Application for firearms prohibition and forfeiture.

Issue: Whether Crown could establish that our client posed a risk to himself or others.

Result: Mid trial, Mr. Mines was able to obtain a successful resolution in which our client consented to an 18 month prohibition rather than the 5 years Crown had been seeking.  Further, rather than having to forfeit the  $15,000 worth of weapons that police seized,  Crown agreed to allow our client to sell them to a suitable buyer.

R. vs. H.J. – Surrey Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Unlawful Storage of Firearms.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to direct a stay of proceedings upon our client agreeing to a 5 year firearms prohibition. No criminal record.