• 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. O.P. – Victoria Provincial Court

Charges: Voyeurism; Criminal harassment.

Issue: Whether Crown could prove that our client actually recorded and distributed images without consent of the complainant.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed only on the criminal harassment charge. After hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions, the trial judge granted our client a conditional sentence order with a curfew for two months. No jail.

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

Charges: Indecent Act; Assault With a Weapon; Possessing of a Weapon for Dangerous Purpose (x2); Robbery; Uttering Threats; Theft of Property of a Value not Exceeding $5,000.

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with prosecution of all counts; whether a jail sentence was appropriate.

Result: Mr. Johnston identified weaknesses in the evidence which persuaded the Crown there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on the Indecent Act charge.  Mr. Johnston persuaded Crown counsel  to resolve the case on three of the remaining counts and to stay all remaining charges. After hearing Mr. Johnston’s submissions regarding our client’s personal circumstances and his significant rehabilitation efforts,  the Court agreed to release our client from custody and to place him on a probation order with conditions supporting his rehabilitation. No further jail time.

R. vs. M.G. – RCMP Investigation

Charges: Possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood that Crown could establish that our client was a willing participant in the alleged drug trafficking scheme.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information and persuade police to not seek any criminal charges against our client. No charges were approved. Our client’s vehicle was retuned. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.K. – New Westminster Provincial Court

Charges: Assault.

Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide additional information and persuaded Crown counsel stay the charge upon our client completing the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.L. – Vancouver Police Investigation

Charge: Assault Peace Officer.

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction in this case which involved an alleged assault of a police officer.

Result: Mr. Gauthier provided information and a video to Crown counsel which showed that the police made an unlawful arrest thereby giving our client lawful grounds to defend himself. Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to not approve any charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.D. – Vernon Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a weapon; Mischief to property.

Issues: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution in this case where our client allegedly intentionally collided with the complainant’s vehicle.

Result: Mr. Gauthier provided additional information to Crown counsel and was able to persuade Crown to resolve this matter with a s.810 Recognizance (Peace Bond).

R. vs. R.V. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.

Issue: Given our client’s circumstances and the circumstances in which he drove, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.

Result: Mr. Mines presented our client’s background information to Crown and was able to persuade Crown to procceed on the lesser charge of Driving without a valid drivers’ licence. Rather than a 12 month minimum driving prohibition, our client was sentenced to a nighttime driving prohibition from 10 pm to 6 am.

R. vs. M.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Attempted Breaking and Entering; Breaking and Entering.

Issue: Whether our client could be released on bail given the Crown’s concerns about our client’s potential to commit further offences.

Result: Mr. Johnston worked with our client to develop a plan which ultimately persuaded Crown to consent to his release on reasonable conditions, even though our client was alleged to have committed these offences while already on bail with numerous other charges, including several counts of breaking and entering.

R. vs. J.D. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Uttering Threats (x2); Assault.

Issue: Given the position of the complainant, whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction or a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.

Result: After considering  Mr. Mines’ representations, Crown counsel concluded the matter by sending a Caution Letter to our client. No charges were approved. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Assault; Uttering Threats ( domestic).

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel on our client’s behalf which resulted in Crown deciding to enterr a stay of proceedings on both charges. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Assault of a Peace Officer.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a discharge for his actions in spitting in the face of an RCMP officer at the Vancouver Airport.

Result: Mr. Gauthier presented information to the Court and after hearing his submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Theft Under $5000.

Issue: Whether Crown could prove the number and value of the electronic devices they alleged our client stole from his workplace.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allege that the theft involved  only 7 devices worth only $1000. After hearing Mr. Mines submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.