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. v. H.C. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether the complainant held herself out to be at least 16 years of age and whether our client took reasonable steps to ascertain her age.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel on our client's behalf that established that our client did take reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age. In the result, Crown declined to approve any criminal charges. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Tax Evasion (Excise Tax Act); Fraud Over $5000 x2.
Issue: Given our client's cooperation with the investigation, his civil settlement and his genuine remorse, whether a jail sentence was appropriate for this almost one million dollar tax evasion case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide medical and financial information to Crown counsel that ultimately led Crown to proceed on the fraud charges rather than seeking an almost one million dollar mandatory fine under the Excise Tax Act. The Court accepted the joint submission for a 2 year less a day conditional sentence and probation. No jail.

R. v. T.C. – Fraud Over $5000 Investigation

Charge: Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Given the civil settlement of this $245,000 misappropriation from employer case, whether there was any interest in pursuing  a criminal investigation and prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to negotiate a civil settlement and obtained a Final Release from the complainant. No criminal investigation occurred. No risk of jail or criminal prosecution.

R. v. Q.D.T. – Vancouver 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 continue the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures program. Upon completion of Alternative Measures, Crown enteresd a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. A.M. – Possession of Stolen Property Investigation – Squamish RCMP

Charge: Possession of Stolen Property (motor vehicles).
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence that our client was aware that the vehicles that he possessed had been obtained by the commission of crimes.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through the police investigation. Ultimately, based on insufficient evidence, police declined to forward charges against our client. No prosecution. No criminal record.

R. v. S.R. – 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 charges were forwarded. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Break and Enter.
Issue: Given our client's mental health issues, whether a conditional discharge was an appropriate sentence for this drug store break in.
Result: Mr. Gauthier  provided Crown counsel with information about our client which persuaded Crown to make a joint submission for a conditional discharge. No jail. No criminal conviction.

R. v. M.G. – Nanaimo Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault; Theft of Motor Vehicle x2; Break & Enter.
Issue: Whether or not it was in the public interest to proceed with the trial considering the reluctance oft the Crown's central witness and rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel that ultimately led to a stay of proceedings on all counts. No criminal record.

R. v. S.G. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charges: Obstruct peace officer.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to continue with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Given our client's remorse and rehabilitation, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to divert our client into the Alternative Measures Program and to withdraw the charge. No criminal record.  

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

Charge:  Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Given our client's rehabilitation and repayment of the 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 charges were forwarded. No criminal record.

R. v. S.M. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Uttering Threats (domestic).
Issue: Given the circumstances of the incident and our client's background, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Considering our client's unblemished history awaiting trial,  Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to withdraw the charge. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Sexual Assault; Breach of undertaking.
Issue: Whether the complaint met the Crown's charge approval standard. Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the breach charge.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown on our client's behalf which, ultimately, resulted in Crown not approving any charge on the sexual assault complaint and agreeing to a 12 month peace bond on the breach charge. 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