• False Creek at night

Our Successes

Assault and Threatening Charges

R. vs. Z.H. – Port Coquitlam Youth Court

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.

Issue: Whether, given the history between our client and the complainant, it was reasonable for our client apply  the level of force he used.

Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to not approve any criminal charge but, rather, to resolve the matter through Restorative Justice. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Assault (x2); Threatening; Breach of Undertaking (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was appropriate for the Court to convict him.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to proceed on only a single count of assault. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. C.G. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: s. 810 Peace Bond Application.

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether the complainant continued to have fear of our client.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to withdraw its Peace Bond application. No conditions. No record.

R. vs. R.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was substantial likelihood of a conviction in this “road rage” assault case.
Result: Mr. Johnson provided information to the Crown that suggested our client was acting in self defence. No charge approved. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Assault with a Weapon; Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps Mr. Johnson was able to steer our client through, whether our client would be convicted of the offences.
Result: After hearing Mr. Johnson’s submissions on our client’s behalf, the Judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No conviction; no criminal record.

R. vs. X.Z. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.C. – Surrey RCMP Investigation

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to point to deficiencies in the evidence. He persuaded Crown counsel to not approve any charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.P. – Whistler RCMP Investigation

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the investigation and persuaded Crown counsel to not proceed with the prosecution. No charge approved. No criminal record.

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

Charge: s.810 Peace Bond Application.
Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the complainant reasonably had fear of our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to point to significant deficiencies in the evidence that allegedly pointed to our client as the party that caused damage to the complainant’s property. He persuaded Crown counsel to withdraw its application. Our client was not subject to any further court imposed conditions.

R. vs. I.L. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Charge: Public Mischief.
Issue: Whether or not our client’s actions amounted to committing a criminal offence.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the investigating officer that our client’s actions did not satisfy the Criminal Code provisions for the alleged offence. The officer did not recommend any charges and concluded his file. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.P. and R.B. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Obstruct Police; Resist Arrest.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with information about our clients and the circumstances of the incident which satisfied Crown that there was no public interest in continuing the prosecution. Complete stays of proceedings. no criminal record.

R. vs. S.T. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps that Mr. Johnson recommended to our client, whether there remained a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution.
Result: Crown counsel allowed our client into the Alternative Measures Program. Upon completion, Crown entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.