• False Creek at night

Our Successes

Theft & Fraud

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

Charge: Theft under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Based on the rehabilitative steps our client initiated, we were able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow her into the Alternative Measures Program without approving any charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.F. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Wheter it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to issue a Caution Letter without approving any criminal charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.V. – Civil Investigation

Charge: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether the complainant would forward charges to police.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate repayment of the misapproptiated funds without our client admitting civil or criminal liability. No charges forwarded or approved. No criminal or police record.

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

Charge: Fraud/Theft Over $5000.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines’ client would be sentenced to jail for this $150,000 investment fraud matter.
Result: Breach of trust notwithstanding, the Court agreed with our sentencing submission and imposed a 12 month conditional sentence. No jail.

R. vs. S.W. Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Theft/Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to jail for this breach of trust theft of $20,000.
Result: Based on the rehabilitative steps our client had taken prior to trial, Mr. Mines was acle to persuade the Crown to agree to a joint submission for a Conditional Sentence Order with a provision for counselling. No jail, curfew or house arrest.

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

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence and the exceptional rehabilative steps our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures program and to stay the criminal charge. No criminal record.

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. H.A. – Saskatoon Provincial Court

Charge: Theft; Possess Break-in Instruments; Breach of Bail; Failure to Appear.
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the criminal charges.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown counsel to enter stays of proceedings on all charges. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Theft under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson persuaded Crown to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program. No charge was approved. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Fraud Over $5000 (x5).
Issue: Whether jail was the appropriate sentence in this $116,000 fraud case involving five complainants.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court granted our client an 18 month Conditional Sentence. No jail.

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

Charge: Breaking and Entering; Participating in a Riot.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: Notwithstanding our client’s participation in the infamous Stanley Cup Riot, after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court granted a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

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

Charge: Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate in this $36,000 emloyee fraud case.
Result: Notwithstanding the breach of trust, the Court granted the “unusual result” of a suspended sentence with 12 months probation and a restitution order. No jail or house arrest.