R. v. M.F. – Surrey Provincial Court
Charge: Health insurance fraud investigation.
Issue: Given our client’s civil settlement of the alleged false insurance claims. whether there was any public interest in proceeding with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to negotiate an appropriate civil settlement and repayment to the employer. No criminal prosecution.
R. v. V.H. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court
Charges: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether or not it was contrary to the public interest for our client to be sentenced to a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through a course of rehabilitation. The Court granted our client the discharge and placed her on probation. No record of conviction.
R. v. J.M. – Abbotsford Provincial Court
Charge: Health insurance fraud investigation.
Issue: Given our client’s civil settlement of the alleged false insurance claims. whether there was any public interest in proceeding with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate an appropriate civil settlement and repayment to the employer. No criminal prosecution.
R. v. K.D. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: Mischief Under $5000 (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given our client’s background and rehabilitative efforts, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the criminal charge upon our client entering into a 12 month peace bond. No criminal record.
R. v. N.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: Theft under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Given our client’s background and remorse, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to admit our client into the Alternative Measures program. Upon completion, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No criminal conviction.
R. v. N.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Theft Under $5,000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Given our client’s background, was it in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program and, upon our client’s completion of the program, Crown entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
R. v. C.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Fraud (in the range of $50,000).
Issue: Based on information Mr. Gauthier was able to provide to the civil investigators about our client’s personal circumstances, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to settle the matter civilly on our client’s behalf. No charges were recommended. No criminal record.
R. v. A.L. – North Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: Sexual assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the police investigation by providing information to police on our client’s behalf. Ultimately, Crown counsel decided to not approve any criminal charge. No jail; no criminal record.
R. v. A.Z. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given information we provided to Crown counsel regarding our client’s background, the circumstances of the incident and the complainant’s wishes, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings, bringing the case to an end. No criminal record.
R. v. I.R. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Sexual assault, assault x 2
Issues: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances, and whether our client should be excused from having to register as a sex offender.
Result: Upon hearing Mr. Johnston’s submissions regarding our client’s personal circumstances, rehabilitative progress, and the unusual nature of the offences, the Court imposed a sentence of probation, rather than the conditional sentence the Crown had sought. For the same reasons, the Court also agreed to excuse our client from the usual requirement of having to register as a sex offender.
R. v. R.A.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: Robbery, uttering threats, possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose
Issues: Whether there was a reasonable chance our client would be convicted at trial, and whether there was public interest in continuing to prosecute our client
Result: Given Mr. Johnston’s representations on behalf of our client and the unusual circumstances of the offence, the Crown agreed there would be difficulty establishing our client was the one who committed the alleged offences, and that it was not in the public interest to continue prosecuting our client. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
R. v. M.M. – Merritt Provincial Court
Charges: Assault, breach of release order (x3)
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable prospect our client could be convicted of all charges at trial, and what the appropriate sentence would be.
Result: Mr. Johnston persuaded the Crown they were unlikely to prove most of the charges at trial given issues with the credibility and reliability of Crown witnesses and the fact our client had a valid defence to one of the charges. Our client pled guilty to one count of breach, which he had been prepared to admit from the outset, and the Crown directed stays of proceedings on all other counts. Given information Mr. Johnston provided about our client’s circumstances at the time of the offences and his rehabilitative efforts since, the Crown also agreed to support a time-served sentence with no probation, even though our client had a lengthy criminal record and had recently been convicted of several breaches for which he had received far longer jail sentences. No further jail. No probation.
