• False Creek at night

Our Successes

Property Offences

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. C.M. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Obstuct Police; Mischief to Property, Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps that our client took on his own initiative, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to refer our client to the Alternative Measures Program rather than approve criminal charges. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Assault with a Weapon; Mischief; Posession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps taken by our client, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to stay all charges upon our client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.H. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Charge: Mischief to property.
Issue: Whether our client had criminal intent to damage the property in question.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines’ representations, Crown Counsel decided there was no reasonable likelihood of a conviction. They elected not to approve any charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.H. – Richmond RCMP Investigation

Charge: Possession of Stolen Property.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable liklihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines made representations to the investigating officer which ultimately resulted in the police deciding to not proceed on any charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. N.W. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Theft; Posession of Stolen Property Under $5000.
Issue: Whether, given new evidence provided by our client, the Crown had a reasonable prospect of a conviction.
Result: At the outset of the trial, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to call no evidence. The trial judge dismissed both charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.V. – Vancouver Police Investigation

Charge: Possession of Stolen Property.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that our client had knowledge that the property that he possessed was stolen.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the police investigation without any charges being recommended. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Assault; Mischief (x2); participating in a Riot.
Issue: Whether our client would be sententeced to the 6 to 8 month jail sentence sought by the Crown.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel that our client’s role in the Stanley Cup Riot did not include a serious assault. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court imposed a 75 day intermittent sentence.

R. vs. A.C. – Vancouver Police Investigation

Charge: Public Mischief; Obstructing Police.
Issue: Whether our client would be charged for providing a false/misleading statement to police.
Result: We were able to provide a new statement to police on our client’s behalf. File concluded with no criminal charges being forwarded.

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

Charge: Create Terrorism Hoax; Public Mischief.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of the offence, it would be appropriate for the Court to convict Mr. Mines’ client.
Result: After lengthy submissions to Crown Counsel by Mr. Mines, Crown agreed to proceed on the lesser charge of Public Mischief. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court granted his client a Discharge.