• False Creek at night

Our Successes

Sexual Offences

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

Charge: Possession of Cocaine.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client had control over the drugs  that were located near him.
Result: Upon considering our representations, Crown counsel concluded that there was insufficient evidence against our client and declined to approve a charge. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Possession of Child Pornography.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client had knowledge of the images that were sent by email to his computer.
Result: After reviewing the evidence and considering Mr. Mines’ representations, Crown Counsel declined to approve any charge in this matter. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity in question.
Result: On the eve of a 10 day trial, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel that there was no substantial lilelihood of conviction. In the circumstances Crown entered a stay of proceedings upon our client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.B. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.
Result: Upon completion of a 5 day trial, the trial judge agreed with our submissions that the Crown failed to prove its case. Not guilty. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.B. – Surrey RCMP Investigation

Charge: Posession of Child Pornography; Luring a Child.
Issue: Even though police concluded that no charges would be forwarded to Crown counsel, our client remained classified as a “suspect” and the incident was therefore viewable as a Police Information Record. 
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade police that our client was not, in law, chargeable with an offence. In the result, the record was made non disclosable. No police record.

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

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether key evidence would be admissible at trial due to police breaching our client’s Charter rights.
Result: Prior to the start of a 15 day trial, we were able to persuade Crown Counsel to drop the sex assault charge and to proceed on the much less serious offence of voyeurism. Rather than facing a lengthy jail sentence and a deportation order, our client was granted a three month Conditional Sentence and probation. No jail or deportation order.

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

Charge: Sexual Assault; Assault; Threatening.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: As a result of new information we provided, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter stays of proceedings on all charges. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Sex Assault; Uttering Threats (x2).
Issue: Whether, given the information we urged Crown to consider, it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay both criminal charges upon our client entering into a s. 810 “Peace Bond”. No criminal record.
             

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

Charge: Commit Indecent Act.
Issue: Whether our client had the necessary criminal intent for the offence and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to drop the criminal charge upon our client entering into a “Peace Bond”. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.T. – Cranbrook RCMP Investigation

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove that the complainant did not give consent.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the investigation and conclude the matter by persuading Crown that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction. No charge approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. G.G. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Charges: Sexual Interference; Sex Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: We were able to successfully steer our client through the police investigation. Ultimately Crown Counsel declined to approve any charge.

R. vs. A.S. – Coquitlam RCMP Investigation

Charge: Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: We were able to successfully steer our client through the investigation. No charges recommended.