• 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. J.K. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Possession for the purpose of trafficking (fentanyl, crystal meth and MDMA) in a prison.
Issue: Whether the drugs were possessed by our client for the purpose of trafficking or for personal use.
Result: After a 3 day trial, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade the Crown that our client was guilty of only the lesser offence of simple possession. Rather than being sentenced to a two year mandatory minimum jail sentence, the trial judge released our client from custody.

R. vs. A.S. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Given our client’s circumstances and the circumstances of the offence, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. Our client was able to avoid the mandatory minimum one year driving prohibition.

R. v. B.H. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings upon our client entering into a Peace Bond for a period of six months. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.J. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Domestic Assault (reduced to “Peace Bond”).
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence and the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charge and to ask the court to place our client on a “Peace Bond” for a period of six months. No criminal record.

R, vs. N.O. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. E.N. – Provincial Court of Quebec

Charge: Conspiracy to Traffic, Trafficking, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (heroin and cocaine).
Issue: Whether our client intended to agree to bring several grams of heroin and cocaine into a federal penitentiary.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with information about the circumstances of the offence and of our client – essentially that she was manipulated by the co-accused. Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to allow our client to plead guilty to the lesser offence of simple possession and to make a joint submission for a 6 month conditional sentence order. Rather than a minimum 2 year mandatory sentence on the conspiracy charge,  our client received no jail time whatsoever.

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

Charge: Assault x2; Uttering Threats x2.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken on his own initiative, whether it was necessary for him to be sentenced to a jail term.
Result: Notwithstanding that police had recommended that this matter be treated as a “hate crime”, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to make a joint submission to the Court for a 90 day conditional sentence order with probation to follow. No jail.

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

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed by way of a s.810 Recognizance (“Peace Bond”) and to enter a stay of proceedings on the assault charge. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether, given our client’s circumstances, it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of Driving Without a License. Rather than the mandatory minimum 12 month driving prohibition, the Court imposed a one month driving prohibition and a $200 fine.

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

Charge: Assault with a Weapon; Uttering Threats; Mischief to Property.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that there were frailties in the case regarding the complainant’s credibility and whether our client was acting in self defence. Crown agreed to stay all criminal charges and to proceed by way of a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.K. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Breaking and Entering; Possession of Stolen Property.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove that our client, who was a passenger in the principal suspect’s vehicle, had the requisite knowledge of the offence.
Result: Mr. Mines was able tp persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.A. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Theft Over $5000.
Issue: Whether it was appropriate to sentence our client to jail for stealing over $50,000 of merchandise from her employer.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to make a joint submission for a conditional sentence order notwithsatnding the serious breach of trust issue in this  case. After hearing our submissions, the Court placed our client on a 12 month CSO. No jail.