• Vancouver at sunset

Bail Hearings

While there are Criminal Code provisions that permit a suspect to avoid being arrested or held in police custody, in serious cases, police will forward their report to Crown and include a request to apply to the court for the accused to be detained in custody pending their trial. In British Columbia, there can be waits of several months for a trial date, even when the accused is detained. As defence lawyers, we certainly appreciate that criminal law presumes our client to be innocent unless the Crown is able to prove, at trial, that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, because our client is presumed innocent, we will always make forceful arguments that they should be released from pre-trial custody on reasonable terms.

Recent Successes

R. v. A.K. & N.L. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Fraud Over $5000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client's cooperation and repayment of the disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a police investigation and a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges recommended. No criminal record.

R. v. H.L. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Fraud Over $5000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client's cooperation and repayment of the disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a police investigation and a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges recommended. No criminal record.

R. v. R. A. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Given our client's circumstances and the circumstances of the allegation, whether it was in the public interest for Crown to continue the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown that persuaaded Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. C.W. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault x2 (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution and whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel which led to Crown deciding to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. S.N. – Quesnel Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (by choking); assault; mischief to property.
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution and whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel which led to Crown deciding to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. S.G. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether the police investigation met the Crown's charge approval standard.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to the RCMP investigator which ultimately led to police recommending that no charges be approved. No criminal prosecution. No further "no contact" condition. File closed.

R. v. M.L. – Prince George Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was contrary to the public interest for our client to be discharged on conditions.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to the Court which resulted in our client being granted a conditional discharge rather than the conviction sought by Crown counsel.

R. v. L.C. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Fraud Over $5000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client's cooperation and repayment of the disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a police investigation and a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges recommended. No criminal record.

R. v. M.R. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the information Mr. Mines provided to Crown about the circumstances of the alleged incident, whether there was a substatial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to not approve any charge with respect to this matter. No further bail conditions. No criminal record.

R. v. R.T. – Quesnel Provincial Court

Charges: Assault ; Mischief Under $5000 (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given our client's personal circumstances, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charges upon our client agreeing to a 12 month peace bond and a 5 year firearms prohibition. No criminal record.

R. v. R. G. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Charge: Criminal Harassment.
Issue: Given our client's lack of criminal history and the lack of a police warning before the arrest and recommending the harassment charge, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade police to issue a warning to our client rather than proceeding with acriminal prosecution. No criminal record.

R. v. N.H.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault by choking; break and enter; theft under $5000 and breach of bail x2 (reduced to peace bond).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to continue prosecuting the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter stays. of proceedings on all criminal charges upon our client agreeing to a peace bond. No jail. No criminal record.

Showing “Cause”

A term that arises in the context of a bail hearing is “show cause.” This term refers to the burden placed (normally on the Crown) to demonstrate to the court to justify why the accused should be detained in custody. In order to show cause for detention, the Crown must satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities, that there are reasonable grounds to do so. The three grounds that are considered include:

The Primary Ground: that the detention of the accused is necessary to ensure the accused’s attendance at court on future dates.

In cases where our client has no history of failing to attend court or no history of failing to obey court imposed conditions, we will argue that the Crown has failed to meet their burden and that our client is entitled to be released from custody.

The Secondary Ground: that the detention of the accused is necessary for the protection and safety of the public from the risk of the accused committing further offences, including interfering with or intimidating witnesses.

In cases where our client has no history of committing criminal offences, we will argue that the Crown has failed to meet their burden and that our client is entitled to be released from custody.

The Tertiary Ground: that the detention of the accused is necessary to maintain public confidence in the court to administer justice. Under this ground, the court must consider circumstances including, the apparent strength of the Crown’s case, the gravity of the offence and whether a firearm was used in the commission of the offence.

In cases where the Crown seeks detention on the tertiary ground, we will put forth a proposed release plan that will ensure that our client obeys terms and conditions to ensure community safety. We will advance arguments that “public confidence in the administration of justice” includes the notion that a well-informed public knows and appreciates that Canadian law entitles accused persons to be presumed innocent prior to a finding of guilt at trial.

Reverse Onus

While the Crown generally has the onus of proving that a detention order is necessary, there are some situations that the Criminal Code sets out that the accused has the burden of justifying their release. The conditions that trigger the “reverse onus” provisions include:

  • Where Crown alleges that an accused who has already been released has breached one or more of their release conditions (i.e. a “no contact” order);
  • Where Crown alleges that an accused who has been released has committed a subsequent offence;
  • Where the accused is charged with certain serious offences, such as firearms, weapons, drug trafficking, criminal organization or terrorism-related offences.

The existence of any of the conditions which invoke the “reverse onus” provisions make it significantly more difficult to be granted bail. It is, therefore, imperative to obtain the assistance of skilled and experienced counsel.

Preparing for a Bail Hearing

Our role as defence counsel in preparing for a bail hearing is to gather as much information as possible regarding the nature and strength of the Crown’s case. We will obtain as much of the police report to Crown as quickly as it is made available. We will meet with our client (including a visit to police lock-up or jail if necessary) and our client’s family to obtain information and to develop a release plan. In some situations, it may be necessary to raise a cash deposit or to arrange a surety to guarantee our client’s compliance with release conditions and return to court. Surety bail involves a person, usually a relative or close friend of the accused, who acts as a guarantor by pledging real estate property to secure a set financial amount (perhaps in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars) that is payable to the court in the event that the accused breaches a condition or fails to return to court.

In preparing for a bail hearing, we will assemble all relevant information and present it to the court in our proposal to have our client released from custody on the least restrictive conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.