• 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. S.J. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether the evidence would meet the standard for Crown counsel to approve a criminal charge.
Result: We were able to steer our client through the police investigation which concluded with Mr. Johnson persuading Crown counsel to not approve any charge whatsoever. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program without approving any charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.P. – Agassiz RCMP Investigation

Charge: Production of illicit cannabis oil.
Issue: Whether there were reasonable grounds to proceed with a criminal prosecution and a civil forfeiture application.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to steer our client through the police investigation and, in the result, no charges were forwarded to Crown nor was the matter referred to the Director of Civil Forfeiture. We were able to get the 2 recreational vehicles that were seized returned to our client. No criminal record.

R. vs. G.B. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Assault (x2).
Issue: Given the nature of the allegations and the rehabilitative steps taken by our client under our direction, whether it was appropriate for our client to be sentenced to jail.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on one count; our client pleaded guilty to the remaining count and, after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a six month conditional sentence and 2 years probation. No jail.

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

Charge: Sexual Assault (reduced to common Assault).
Issue: Given the nature of the allegation and the rehabilitative steps our client had taken under our direction, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the sex assault charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed with a charge of common assault and, after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court granted our client an absolute discharge. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps that our client took under our direction, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution.
Result: Upon presenting materials to the Crown, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade the prosecutor to not approve any charge. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with this charge that calls for a one year mandatory minimum driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a valid driver’s licence. Our client received a fine, but after hearing Mr. Johnson’s submissions, the Court did not impose a driving prohibition.

R. vs. S.M. – Motor Vehicle Fatality Investigation

Charge: Criminal Negligence Causing Death; Dangerous Driving Causing Death.
Issue: Whether the evidence against our client was sufficient for Crown to approve charges.
Result: Mr. Johnson provided information to police and ICBC on our client’s behalf. Upon considering this information, police concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend charges. No jail, no conviction, no charge, no criminal record.

R. vs. E.C.Z. – ICBC Fraud Investigation

Charge: Insurance fraud.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to foirward charges to police and Crown counsel.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to provide information to the investigator so as to convince him that it was not in the public interest to procced with charges. No criminal or regulatory offence record.

T.T. vs. The Queen – Vancouver Supreme Court (Appeal Div.)

Charge: Violation Ticket, Conviction Appeal.
Issue: Whether there was a legitimate reason for missing the appeal deadline and whether there was merit to the appeal.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Appeal Court granted the application to extend time, allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.

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

Charge: Pointing a Firearm; Assault with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to a mandatory minimum 12 month jail sentence.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to not proceed by way of the mandatory minimum and, after making submissions to the Court, the trial judge sentenced our client to a 4 month conditional sentence and 12 months of probation. No jail.

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

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to jail.
Result: Despite the serious nature of the allegations, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to seek a non-custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Johnson’s submissions on our client’s behalf, the trial judge granted our client a 12 month conditional sentence and 24 months probation. No jail.