• False Creek at night

Our Successes

Drug Charges

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

Charge: Possession of a controlled substance (cocaine).
Issue: Whether our client would be convicted of the charge.
Result: Contrary to Crown Counsel’s sentencing position, after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court granted our client an Absolute Discharge. No permanent criminal record.

R. vs. B.S. and S.T. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Possession of a Controlled Substance (cocaine).
Issue: Whether our clients would have convictions registered against them.
Result: Contrary to Crown counsel’s sentencing position, the court, after considering Mr. Mines’ submissions, granted both of our clients Absolute Discharges. No permanent record.

R. vs. J.T. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Possession of Cocaine.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a discharge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide evidence and submissions to the court which resulted in the court granting an absolute discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. C.H. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Charge: Mischief to property.
Issue: Whether our client had criminal intent to damage the property in question.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines’ representations, Crown Counsel decided there was no reasonable likelihood of a conviction. They elected not to approve any charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. O.E. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Possession of a Controlled Substance (x2).
Issue: Whether the rehabilitative steps our client had taken would result in the Court granting him a discharge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions on our client’s behalf, the Court granted him an absolute discharge. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.B. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Possession of Cocaine.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client had control over the drugs  that were located near him.
Result: Upon considering our representations, Crown counsel concluded that there was insufficient evidence against our client and declined to approve a charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.B. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Possession of Marijuana.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution where our client was charged with possession of 5.5 ounces of marijuana.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program. Upon competion, the Court dismissed the charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.B. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Possession of a controlled substance.
Issue: Whether the marijuhana was possesed for the purpose of trafficking or was for personal use.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown that the 5 ounces of marijuhana was for personal use and, given our client’s circumstances, to allow him into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.H. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking.
Issue: Whether the police actions amounted to an unlawful search and seizure in this “dial-a-dope” case.
Result: We were able to steer our client through the investigation. Ultimately, after considering Mr. Johnson’s representations, the police agreed there were problems with the search and forwarded no charges to Crown. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Trafficking Marijuana.
Issue: Whether all of the evidence gathered during this extensive police investigation would be admissible against our client who was alleged to be trafficking at the pound level.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to abandon roughly half of its case due Charter breaches. After hearing our submissions, the Court granted our client a 6 month Conditional Sentence. No jail.

R. vs. K.C. – Salmon Arm Provincial Court

Charges: Production of Marijuana; PPT Marijuana and MDMA.
Issue: Whether the search warrant was valid; whether our client had standind to challenge the search; whether Crown could prove our client had control over the 1500 plant grow operation and the MDMA.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown that their case was flawed. Complete stay of proceedings prior to the second day of the trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.A. – Coquitlam RCMP Investigation

Charge: Possession of Controlled Drugs.
Issue: Whether the police could establish that the substance was a controlled “diet” drug.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the police investgation without any charge being recommended.