Murder and other Serious Offences
Charge: Dangerous Driving Causing Death.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove that our client had the necessary intent to prove that she was guilty of the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed under the Motor Vehicle Act rather than the Criminal Code. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court sentenced our client to 60 days to be served on weekends. The Crown had originally sought a sentence in the range of 2 years.
Charges: Impaired Driving, Dangerous Driving Causing Death.
Issues: Whether police breached our client’s Charter rights during the investigation; whether the court would accept the Crown’s sentencing submission.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that police breached our client’s right against an unlawful seizure of his breath samples. This resulted in the Crown’s inability to prove the Impaired Driving / Over .08 offences. The Crown had originally been seeking up to 4.5 years jail, but sought a one year jail sentence on the Dangerous Driving Causing Death charge. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court found that 5 months was the appropriate sentence.
Issue: Given the reliability of the identification evidence and the circumstances of both the complainant and our client, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the matter as an arson prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of Mischief to Property (under $5000). Our client was sentenced to 24 months probation. No jail.
Charge: Attempted Child Abduction; Assault x2.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove that our client actually intended to abduct the alleged victim.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that, by reason of severe intoxication, our client was incapable of forming the intent to abduct the victim. We were able to provide background material to the court which indicated that our client’s actions were truly out of charcter and that he was a very low risk to reoffend. The court agreed with a joint submission for a conditional discharge with 12 months probation. No jail. No criminal conviction.
Charge: Aggravated Assault with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether, during the commission of the stabbing offence, our client was suffering from a mental disorder.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to assemble medical records and obtain an expert psychiatric opinion that ultimately resulted in the Court making the finding that our client was not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder. Rather than facing a lengthy jail sentence, our client was referred, on an out of custody basis, to the Mental Health Review Board for final disposition. No jail. No criminal record.
Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm; Unlawful Confinement; Extortion; Robbery (all reduced to Common Assault).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charges as laid and whether it was necessary for the court to enter a conviction.
Result: Based on the rehabilitative steps taken by our client, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of simple assault. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.
Charge: Robbery with an Imitation Firearm.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove that our client was a party to the robbery and weapons offences.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that our client had no knowledge of his co-accused’s actions. Crown proceeded on the lesser offence of Assault Causing Bodily Harm and, after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court sentenced our client to a 12 month period of probation. No jail.
Issue: Whether our client had the intent to cause death in this case which involved multiple blows to the head with a weapon.
Result: After working out an agreed statement of facts with Crown, Mr. Mines was able to make submissions to the Court that resulted in a sentence of 5.5 years in addition to the one year already served.
Issue: Whether our client had the necessary mental capacity to be convicted of a criminal offence.
Result: After hearing Mr. Johnson’s submissions, the trial judge found that our client was Not Criminally Responsible on account of a Mental Disorder. No criminal record.
Charge: Assault; Threatening.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
Charges: Fraud Over $5000 (x14).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines’ client would be sentenced to the 24 – 30 month jail sentence soght by the Crown in this large scale ($270,000) employee fraud case.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court granted his client a 2 year conditional sentence. No jail.
Charges: Aggravated Assault; Assault with a Weapon (x2).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mansoori-Dara’s client’s Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mansoori-Dara’s submissions that the 22 month delay was unreasonable, the trial judge entered a judicial stay of proceedings. No criminal record.