• Vancouver at night

Possession of Stolen Property

The Charge

Closely related to theft, possession of stolen property is an offence punishable by indictment, if the value of the property is over $5000, for up to two years imprisonment. Where the value is under $5000, the offence is punishable on summary conviction for up to two years jail, less a day. Section 354 of the Criminal Code sets out that it is an offence to possess property “knowing that the property was obtained or derived directly or indirectly by the commission of an offence.”  Thus, it is illegal to possess property that has been stolen or obtained fraudulently. It is an essential element of the offence that the Crown proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused knew that the property was derived from an offence and that the accused exercised control over the property.

The Investigation

Actual theft or fraud is not an essential element of this offence. Rather, the Crown need only prove that the property belonged to someone other than the accused and that the accused had knowledge that the property he possessed was, in fact, obtained through the commission of an offence. The investigating officer will certainly take statements from the property’s true owner and any witnesses who observed the accused in possession of the property. Knowledge that the property was obtained through an offence may be inferred, such as where the suspect is driving a vehicle with a broken door lock and a “punched” ignition. Additionally, police will also very likely seek to obtain an explanation from their suspect in an effort to get the suspect to admit that they knew the property was obtained illegally. This is where we as experienced defence lawyers can help by providing advice to our clients regarding their rights under the Charter, including their right to remain silent.

Recent Successes

R. vs. A.J. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud Over $5,000 Investigation.
Issue: Given that we were able to negotiate a civil settlement of this $13,000 insurance claim overpayment, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a settlement of the alleged fraudulent claim. We obtained a full Release, ending the matter in both the civil and criminal context. No further liability. No criminal charges.

R. vs. M.M. – New Westminster Police Investigation

Charge: Sexual Assault Investigation.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence for police to recommend that criminal charges be approved.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to guide our client through the police investigation, and to provide police with information on our client's behalf. Ultimately, police decided not to forward any charge to Crow. No charges approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.T. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud Under $5,000
Issue: Given our client's repayment of the alleged fraudulent health insurance benefits, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to settle the matter civilly on our client's behalf without any further civil or criminal proceeding. No charges were approved.

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

Charges: Assault (domestic) Reduced to Peace Bond.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to continue with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through a course of rehabilitation and persuaded Crown to stay the assault charge and to allow our client to enter into a Peace Bond.

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

Charges: Assault; Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence for criminal charges to be approved.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with additional information and persuaded Crown that it was not in the public interest to proceed with any criminal charges.

R. vs. M.H.E. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

Charges: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel regarding our client's circumstances and was able to persuade Crown that there was no public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Sexual Assault; Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we guided our client through, the nature of the sex assault itself and our client's true remorse, whether a jail sentence or house arrest were required.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to make a joint submission for a conditional discharge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on our client's behalf, the trial judge granted our client the discharge. No jail or house arrest. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. N. O. – Courtenay Provincial Court

Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm x2; Assault x3.
Issues: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel which cast the complainant's credibility and reliability into doubt. The Crown made an adjournment application which Mr. Gauthier opposed. Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to stay all of the criminal charges upon our client entering into a Peace Bond. No jail; No criminal record.

R. v. K.T. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Given our client's repayment of the alleged fraudulent health insurance benefit claims, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able settle the matter on our client's behalf and received a Release from the insurer ending the matter without any further civil or criminal proceeding. No charges were approved.

R. vs. A.H. – Vancouver Supreme Court

Charges: Sentence Appeal - Forcible entry; Assault with a weapon.
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court would uphold our client's conditional discharge that was granted to our client by the Provincial Court.
Result: After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions on this sentence appeal, the Supreme Court justice agreed with Mr. Gautier and ruled that the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances. The court dismissed the Crown's appeal. The conditional discharge was upheld.

R. v. J.F. – Dawson Creek Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: The credibility of the complainant's testimony during this three day trial.
Result: After vigorous cross examination of the complainant and another Crown eyewitness, Mr. Gauthier made submissions which were accepted by the trial judge. The court found our client to be not guilty and aquitted him of the charge. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.C. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault (x2).
Issue: In the circumstances of these historic charges and our client's rehabilitation, whether a community based sentence was appropriate.
Result: Notwithstanding that Crown counsel sought a 20 month jail sentence, the trial judge agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that, in the circumstances of our client's genuine remorse and rehabilitation, it was appropriate to  grant a conditional sentence of 21 months. No jail.

The Defence

Unreasonable Search

Section 8 of the Charter guarantees that people must be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The role of defence counsel in any search case is to analyze the actions of the investigating police officers to test whether their search was, in fact, lawful and authorized by the Charter. In some situations, police must obtain pre-authorization from a justice or judge in the form of a search warrant. Where police overreach their authority, and conduct a search based on mere suspicion, rather than probable grounds, we will apply to the court under s.24(2) of the Charter to have the “fruits of the search” excluded from the trial. Without the admission of the property into the trial, the court will likely find insufficient evidence to convict.

Lack of Knowledge

Section 4(3) of the Criminal Code sets out that a person has something in “possession” when they:

  • Are in actual possession of it; or
  • Knowingly keep the thing in any place; and
  • Where one of two persons or more, with the knowledge and consent of the rest, has the thing in their custody, it shall be deemed to be in the custody of all of them.

Even in situations where police find an accused in actual possession of stolen property, absent any confession, the accused will be found not guilty if they can establish that they believed on reasonable grounds that they were in lawful possession of the property or that they were acting under the authority of a person whom they reasonably believed had lawful authority over the property.

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.