Entries by Mike Mines

R. v. G. A.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Assault (domestic).

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction in this case.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that, given the lack of cooperation by the complainant, that there was no prospect of a conviction. Crown counsel did not approve any charges and, on Mr. Mines’ representations, agreed to cancel the scheduled court date and to direct police to cancel our client’s Undertaking to Appear. No criminal record.

R. v. L.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Mischief Over $5000.

Issue: Whether Crown could prove the value of damage alleged to have been caused by our client.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that because it could not accurately prove the value of damage, and that our client had taken appropriate steps of self-rehabilitation,  Crown elected to not approve any charges. No criminal record.

R. v. H.K. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

/in , , /by

Charge: Assault.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution in this “road rage” case.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel about our client’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of the incident which resulted in Crown staying the charge after our client completed Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. v. S.G. – Surrey Provincial Court

/in , , /by

Charges: Assault; Mischief.

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps that we guided our client through and advocating on her behalf that there was a reasonable self defence issue, whether there was a substantial likelihood of securing a conviction.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction. Ultimately Crown entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal conviction. No criminal record.

R. v. K.B.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , , /by

Charges: B&E; Assault; Distribute Intimate Images.

Issue: Whether the Crown could comply with a defence disclosure request and possibly face a Charter application to have charges stayed due to unreasonable delay.

Result: On the eve of the trial, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to allow our client to plead guilty to the least serious charge, assault by slapping. Crown nonetheless sought a conviction and probation, but after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the trial judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. v. C.B.S. – Richmond Provincial Court

/in , , /by

Charges: B&E; Assault; Distribute Intimate Images.

Issue: Whether the Crown could comply with a defence disclosure request and possibly face a Charter application to have charges stayed due to unreasonable delay.

Result: On the eve of the trial, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to allow our client to plead guilty to the least serious charge, assault by slapping. Crown nonetheless sought a conviction and probation, but after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the trial judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. v. V.L. – Vancouver Provincial Youth Court

/in , /by

Charge: Assault.

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with criminal charges.

Result: After providing Crown counsel with our client’s positive psychological counselling report, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. C.J.X. – Richmond Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges:  Assault with a Weapon.

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with criminal charges.

Result: After providing Crown counsel with our client’s  positive psychological counselling report, Mr. Gauthier  was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. B.E. – Surrey Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Assault (domestic) x2.

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. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel on our client’s behalf and ultimately persuaded Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. A.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: B & E, Fraud over $5000, Motor vehicle theft; Identity theft, Driving while prohibited (x2).

Issue: Given our client’s personal circumstances and rehabilitative efforts, what would be the appropriate sentence.

Result:  Mr. Johnston was able to persuade Crown to make a joint submission for time-served, followed by a period of probation. The Crown directed stays of proceedings on several charges.  After hearing Mr. Johnston’s submissions on our client’s behalf, the sentencing judge noted that he would have ordinarily imposed a lengthy jail sentence for an accused in our client’s position, but he accepted the joint submission. No further jail.

R. v. M.A.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by
Charge: Possession of fentanyl and carfentanil for the purposes of trafficking.

Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnston provided to Crown counsel regarding our client’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged offence, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Johnston was able to persuade the Crown that there were issues with respect to the Crown’s evidence such that it was unlikely our client would be convicted at trial, and that there was insufficient public interest in continuing to prosecute our client in any case. Given this informaton, the Crown directed a stay of proceedings on the charge. No criminal record.