You are here: / / Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose
  • Vancouver at night

Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose

The Charge

Section 2 of the Criminal Code defines a weapon as “anything used, designed to be used or intended for use in causing death or injury to any person” or “for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person.” Weapons include, therefore, obvious things such as firearms and knives. Depending on the context in which they are possessed, “weapons” might also include such things as a rock, a baseball bat, or even a potted plant or a pencil.

Under s. 88 of the Code, it is unlawful to carry or possess a weapon (or imitation) for a purpose that is dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence. The crucial element of this offence is the purpose for which the accused person has the weapon. The Crown must prove that the accused’s purpose for possessing the weapon was, in fact, for a dangerous purpose. The court must examine all of the surrounding circumstances in order to infer whether or not the accused possessed the weapon for a purpose that is dangerous to the public peace.

Everyone who commits the offence possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose is guilty of an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years in jail, or a summary offence with a maximum sentence of 2 years less a day.

The Investigation

Actual use of a weapon is not an essential element of this offence. Rather, the Crown need only prove that the weapon was possessed for the purpose of endangering the public. The purpose for which the accused had the weapon must, therefore, be determined by police. The investigating officer will certainly take statements from the complainant(s) and any witnesses. Police will also very likely seek to obtain an explanation from their suspect. They will seek to verify the complaint by getting the suspect to admit they possessed the item alleged to be a “weapon” and they will seek to get the suspect to admit that their purpose was to endanger someone. This is where we as experienced criminal 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. M.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in  the public interest continue with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed with a Peace Bond rather than the criminal assault charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.Q. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Mischief to Property.
Issue: After Mr. Gauthier was able to facilitate making restitution on our client's belf, whether it was in the public interest top proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Results: Crown counsel accepted Mr. Gauthier's representations and concluded the matter by entering a stay of proceedings. no criminal record.

R. vs. A.V. – Duncan Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnston was able to provide to Crown counsel about our client's circumstances and the significant rehabilitation steps we were able to guide him through, whether it remained in the public interest to continue with the prosecution.
Result: Crown counsel accepted Mr. Johnston's representations and concluded the matter by entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.J. – Chilliwack Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether a criminal prosecution was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed pursuant to a s. 810 Peace Bond, and to enter a stay of proceedings on the criminal charge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court placed our client on the Peace Bond. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Insurance fraud over $5000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client's rehabilitation and repayment of disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the Insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charhges were forwarded. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.K. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; assault with a weapon; breach of undertaking (x2); attempting to take weapon from police.
Issue: Whether our client's personal circumstances and positive rehabilitative steps made him a good candidate for a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed only on the common assault charge and to stay proceedings on the remaining four criminal charges. After hearing Mr. Mines'submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation for 12 months. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. A.S. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Fraud Over $5,000 (x4); Theft Over $5,000 (x4).
Issue: Given that full restitution was made and that our client had taken significant steps toward self-rehabilitation, whether jail was the appropriate sentence for this $240,000 employee fraud.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to facilitate the restitution payment and provided medical information to Crown counsel on our client's behalf. Ultimately Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to  jointly  recommend a non-custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, our client was granted a 2 year less a day conditional senntence.. No jail.

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

Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm (reduced to assault).
Issue: Whether the caselaw supported our client receiving a conditional discharge for this domestic assault case in which the coplainant sustained a significant injury.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide Crown counsel with information about our client and a number of case authorities which resulted in Crown agreeing to proceed on assault simpliciter  and to make a joint recommendation for a conditional discharge, which was accepted by the court.

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

Charges: Assault causing bodily harm.
Issue: Given the parallel civil claim and the issue of  self defence, whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information about our client's circumstances and the circumstances of the incident which caused Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. P.G. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Assault by Choking.
Issue: Whether our client was acting in self defence and whether he used excessive force.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to guide our client through a course of self rehabilitation and to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser charge of simple assault. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge and declined to make the restitution order sought by the complainant. No criminal conviction.

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

Charges: Fraud Over $5,000 Investigation.
Issue: Given that we were able to negotiate a civil settlement of this $6,000 insurance claim overpayment, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to negotiate a settlement of the alleged fraudulent claim. We obtained a full Release, ending the matter. No further liability. No criminal charges were forwarded.

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

Charges: Sexual assault; assault.
Issue: Whether the trial judge would allow Mr. Mines' application to cross examine the complainant on prior records (text messages) that impacted her credibility and reliability.
Result: The trial judge allowed our application in part, and ruled that the remaining issues could be renewed at at further point in the trial. Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings after the conclusion of our application. No further prosection. No jail. no criminal record.
View All

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 weapon into the trial, the court will likely find insufficient evidence to convict.

Lack of Possession

In many situations, people are arrested on weapons charges with the weapon not directly in their possession. For example, a knife might be in the glovebox or trunk of the car. It might be that the accused is not driving their own car but, rather, the car of a friend or relative. In these situations, absent any incriminating confession, it may be possible to argue that the accused had no knowledge of the weapon or that they had no control over it. As experienced defence lawyers, we understand the high standard that the law requires when prosecuting weapons offences. We are dedicated to protecting our client’s rights.

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.

Connect