• 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. A.P. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Trafficking (marijuana).
Issue: Whether police conducted a lawful search.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade crown that the police conduct amounted to enratapment. No charge approved.

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

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown tp proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a licence and to aggree to a 6 month  driving prohibition.

R. vs. C.C. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (marijuana).
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to the jail sentence that was sought by the Crown.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. P.L. – PortCoquitlam Provincial Court

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.

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

Charge: Sex Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge, given that our client mistook social cues and touched the complainant’s breast without her consent.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve any charge upon our client successfully completing Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. vs. P.S. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Impaired Driving; Over .08.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: After our client completed rehabilitative steps on her own, we were able to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings on the criminal charge and to proceed on a lesser Motor Vehicle Act charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. Y.T. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge which carries a mandatory minimum 12 month driving prohibition..
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of Driving without a Licence. No driving prohibition.

R. vs. K.L. and M.B. – Jasper Provincial Court

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (suspected MDMA).
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, the drugs were possessed for the purpose of trafficking.
Result: The drugs analyzed showing only a trace amount of a controlled substance. Mr. Mines persuaded Crown that the other evidence fell short of proving an intent to traffick. The Crown withdrew the PPT charges and agreed to resolve the matter with a plea to a single count of simple possession of marijuana. The court imposed a $200 fine.

R. vs. G.B. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Marijuana).
Issue: Whether the vehicle stop and search were lawful.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown that his client’s Charter rights were breached. Stay of Proceedings prior to Trial. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Commit an Indecent Act.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove that Mr. Mansoori-Dara’s client had the necessary level of intent to be convicted of the offence.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of Causing a Public Disturbance. The Court granted a suspended sentence with 3 months probation.

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

Charges: Sex Assault
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove that the assault was for a sexual purpose.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade the Crown that his client did not have the necessary level of intent to be guilty of a criminal offence. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.P. – New Westminster Supreme Court

Charges: Production; Posession for the Purpose of trafficking (Marijuana).
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines’ client was the principle operator of the 1000 plant grow operation.
Result: After persuading Crown that his client was merely an enabler, and not the main individual resposnsible for the grow operation, the court accepted a joint submission for a conditional sentence. No jail.