• We have a proven record of success.

    Defending criminal and driving charges since 1993.

    False Creek at night

Our Successes

The vast majority of our clients’ cases are resolved favourably.

R. vs. M.A. – Kamloops Provincial Court

Charge: Mischief to Property.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for Crown counsel to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings upon our client making restitution for the damage he caused, writing a letter of apology and completing community service work. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.W. – White Rock RCMP Investigation

Charge: Mischief to Property (under $5000).
Issue: Whether there was evidence that would support a  criminal charge and whether it was in the public interest to proceed.
Result: Mr. Mines provided information to police, which the investigator considered in concluding that he would not be recommending any charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.C. – North Vancouver RCMP Investigation

Charge: Sexual interference; Invitation to sexual touching.
Issue: Whether there was credible evidence on which to proceed with charges in this historic allegation of sexual touching.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide exculpatory information to police on our client’s behalf. Ultimately, police concluded their investigation with no criminal charges being recommended.

R. vs. S.S. – Nelson Provincial Court

Charge: Possession for the purpose of trafficking.
Issue: Whether, given the large quantity of cocaine and other drugs found upon execution of the search warrant, whether it was appropriate for the court to release our client on bail.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions on our client’s behalf, the Court agreed to release our client on surety bail with strict 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. T.P. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (heroin, fentanyl, cocaine).
Issue: Whether our youthful client would be sentenced to the 2 year jail sentence sought by Crown counsel.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to direct our client through a successful rehabilitation program. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court agreed that there were “special circumstances” that permitted a sentence below the usual range of 18-36 months imprisonment for this offence. Our client was granted a suspended sentence and was placed on probation for 3 years. No jail.

R. vs. C.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court (Traffic)

Charge: Using an Electronic Device while Driving; Speeding.
Issue: Whether the police officer could prove that our client had committed the offences.
Result: After Mr. Johnson conducted the trial and made submissions to the trial judge, the court adjourned twice to provide its decision. On the second date, the court still had not reached a decision whereupon the officer withdrew the violation ticket. No convictions, no fines, no penalty demerit points.

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

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (MDMA).
Issue: Whether the vehicle search was lawful; Whether it was appropriate for the Court to grant the Crown’s adjournment application of the trial.
Result: Mr. Mines opposed the Crown’s adjournment application and the court refused to grant it. Crown entered a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No jail; no criminal record.

R. vs S.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault; Breach Undertaking (domestic).
Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnson provided to Crown counsel, whether there remained a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Crown counsel stayed both charges. 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.

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

Charge: Arson.
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.