• False Creek at night

Our Successes

Assault and Threatening Charges

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

Charge: Aggravated Assault.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to jail.
Result: Rather than the jail sentence that Crown Counsel had originally sought, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of Assault Causing Bodily Harm and, after hearing our submissions, the court granted our client an 8 month conditional sentence to be served in the community. No jail.

R. vs. B.B. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken on his own initiative, whether it ws in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able tp persuade Crown Counsel to stay the criminal charge upon our client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal conviction; no criminal record.

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

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken on his own initiative, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings.

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

Charge: Assault; Transportation Fraud.
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for convictions to be entered against our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to convince the Crown and the Court that because of the steps our client had taken with respect to rehabilitation, it was appropriate to grant a conditional discharge. No conviction.

R. vs. A.F. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose.
Issue: Whether, given the background of our client and the circumstaces of the offence, it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the charge upon our client successfully completing Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.M. – Burnaby RCMP investigation.

Charge: Assualt; Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether, given the statement of an independent witness, there would be a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: We were able to help locate an witness to the alleged offence who provided an explanation that led to police deciding to conclude their file without recommending any chargesl. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substanial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After considering the second statemnt of the complainant as well as Mr. Mines’ representations, Crown Counsel decided to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. L.A. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Asssault with a Weapon; Poseession of a Controlled Substance.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction; whether there were lawful grounds to arrest our client.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines’ submissions, the police report to Crown and a new statement from the complainant, Crown Counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. P.M. – Chilliwack Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (x2).
Issue: Whether our client was acting in self defence.
Result: Prior to the start of the second trial date, Crown entered a sty of proceedings. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. J.R. – Vancouver Police Investigation

Charge: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether the police had sufficient evidence to recommend a charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to successfully steer our client through the investigation. No charges recommended. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.W – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.V. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for our client to be sentenced to a conditional discharge in this “road rage” spitting case despite having received a prior conditional discharge.
Result: After considring the rehabilitative steps our client had taken and upon hearing Mr. Mines’s submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge. No conviction.