• Vancouver at night

Possession of Prohibited or Restricted Firearms

The Charge

Under s. 95 of the Criminal Code, it is an offence to possess a prohibited or restricted firearm that is either loaded or that has ammunition that is readily accessible, unless the person holds an authorization or licence. A “prohibited” firearm includes any handgun that has a barrel equal to or less than 105mm in length and any firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun by cutting the barrel length to less than 660mm. Prohibited firearms also include automatic firearms. A “restricted” firearm includes any handgun that is not a prohibited firearm, that has a barrel length of less than 470mm and is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner. An authorization under the Firearms Act is required for a person to possess any prohibited or restricted firearm, anywhere in Canada.

The Crown may proceed by indictment and seek a sentence of up to 10 years in jail upon conviction. Alternatively, Crown may elect to proceed summarily, in which case the maximum sentence is up to one year in jail. Although there is no longer a mandatory minimum jail sentence for this offence, when the Crown views the offence as having a true “criminal purpose” associated to possessing the prohibited or restricted weapon, Crown will proceed by indictment and will generally seek sentences in the range of 3 years in jail.

The Investigation

A significant number of cases start off at the United States/Canada border with an American visitor who does not understand how seriously different Canadian firearms law is compared to United States laws. While an American may have the right to possess a handgun in the U.S.A., that right becomes a crime with serious consequences in Canada. There are other situations in which the authorities may find a person in possession of illegal firearms. These include situations where vehicles, residences or other places are searched, either with or without a search warrant.

As experienced lawyers defending weapons charges, we understand that in order to prove the offence, customs officials and police have to prove that our client had knowledge and control over the illegal firearm. In the context of a firearm investigation, it is important for a suspect to know that they have the right to remain silent upon arrest. This right is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A person suspected of possessing an illegal firearm has no obligation to acknowledge that they have knowledge of the weapon or control over it.

Recent Successes

R. vs. J.P - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Breach of Undertaking (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay all of the criminal charges and to allow our client to enter into a peace bond. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. F.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Dangerous Driving; Obstruct/Resist Arrest (Reduced to MVA charge).
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove that our client had the necessary element of  intent for a criminal conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on a lesser charge under the Motor Vehicle Act of speeding relative to the road conditions. Our client was sentenced to a driving prohibition. No criminal record.

R. vs. E.Z. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a criminal conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown that there were flaws in the evidence and that a conviction was highly unlikely. No charges were approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. G.M.G. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether our client was acting to defend his spouse when he physically engaged with the complainant.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide further evidence to Crown counsel which persuaded Crown that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction. Complete stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.M. - New Westminster Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether there was merit in moving forward with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to provide information to Crown counsel that led to Crown concluding there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction. Stay of proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.M. - Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Charges: Sexual Interference; Invitation to Sexual Touching; Assault.
Issue: Whether the evidence would lead to charges being approved.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to guide our client through the police investigation and to ultimately persuade the investigating officer that the evidence of the complaint was not reliable. No criminal charges were forwarded to Crown counsel.

R. vs. S.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm (Reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: After directing our client through a course of self rehabilitation, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charge upon our client being placed on a peace bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.K. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Driving while Prohibited.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to the mandatory minimum 12 month driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a valid drivers license. Our client was sentenced to a fine. No driving prohibition.

R. v. P.Z. - North Vancouver RCMP Investigation

Charges: Sexual Interference; Invitation to Sexual Touching; Assault.
Issue: Whether the evidence would lead to charges being approved.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to guide our client through the police investigation and to ultimately persuade the investigating officer that the evidence of the complaint was not reliable. No criminal charges were approved.

R. vs. N.D. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charges: Invitation to Sexual Touching (x2).
Issues: To what extent the court would consider our client's remorse and rehabilitation when passing sentence.
Result: Notwithstanding that our client was in a position of trust and the Crown had originally sought a sentence of 12 months jail, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel and the Court that the appropriate sentence was 90 days, to be served on weekends.

R. vs. R.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction in this case.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to provide information to Crown counsel which resulted in Crown entering a complete stay of proceedings just prior to the trial date. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.A. - Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Breach of Release Order.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed by way of a Peace Bond and to enter a stay of proceedings on the criminal charges. No criminal record.

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

Lack of Possession

In many situations, people are arrested on firearms charges with the firearm not directly in their possession. For example, a handgun 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 firearm 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.