• 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 6 months in jail.

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. C.L. – Civil Fraud Investigation

Charge: Fraud/Theft from employer.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to negotiate repayment on our client's behalf and obtained a civil release from the employer. No charges were forwarded to Crown counsel. No criminal record.

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

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 succesfully completing the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.L. – New Westminster Supreme Court (jury).

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. D.D. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Fraud Over $5000; Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issues: Whether Crown counsel could prove the full amount of the alleged theft and whether our client would be sentenced to jail in this breach of trust case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that they could only prove a $49,000 theft rather than the $75,000 allegation. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court sentenced our client to an 18 month conditional sentence order. No jail.

R. vs. W.W. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault causing bodily harm.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Gauthier provided to Crown counsel, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Crown stayed the proceedings upon our client entering into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. H.K. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation.

Charges: Mischief Under $5000.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Gauthier was able to provide to the RCMP investigator, whether it was in the public interest for police to forward charges to Crown counsel.
Result: Based on the significant collateral consequences that a criminal prosecution would bring to our client, Mr. Gauthier  persuaded police to not forward any criminal charge whatsoever.

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

Charge: Assault causing bodily harm.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Gauthier provided to Crown counsel, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Crown stayed the proceedings upon our client entering into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.J. – ICBC Fraud Investigation

Charges: Insurance (ICBC) Fraud.
Issue: Whether charges would be forwarded to Crown counsel.
Result: Mr. Gauthier  intervened with the ICBC investigator on our client's behalf and was able to clarify and explain the information that ICBC had flagged as being possibly fraudulent. The matter was resolved with no charges being forwarded to Crown counsel. No prosecution; no criminal record.

R. vs. M.H. – Employee Fraud Investigation

Charges: Theft from Employer.
Issue: Whether the complainant would proceed with a criminal complaint when they discovered $65,000 in fraudulent transactions purportedly committed by our client.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to successfully negotiate a civil settlement on our client's behalf. No police investigation; no charges; no criminal record.

R. vs. A.C. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings upon our client completing the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal Record.

R. vs. N.A. – Vancouver Traffic Court

Charges: Speeding (MVA).
Issue: Whether the police officer could prove that our client was speeding, and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the trial.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to the police investigator that led to the officer withdrawing the violation ticket prior to the trial. The lack of this conviction prevented our client from a significant driving prohibition.

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

Charges: Aggravated assault; assault with a weapon.,br> Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnson was able to provide to Crown counsel, whether it was appropriate to contnue with the prosecution on the approved charges.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of assault causing bodily harm. After hearing Mr. Johnson's submissions on our client's behalf, the trail judge sentenced our client to a suspended sentence with 24 months probation. Our client was able to avoid a lengthy jail sentence.

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.