Entries by Mike Mines

R. vs. T. F. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Breach of Probation (no contact).

Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client intended to breach the “no contact” order that he was subject to.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that our client bumped into the complainant accidentally. Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.X. – Insurance Fraud Investigation.

Charge: Assault (domestic).

Issue: In light of the rehabilitative steps our client completed, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with this child discipline/assault case.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to rely on the extraordinary circumstances of the case and our client’s commitment to ongoing family counselling. He was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Assault (domestic).

Issue: In light of the rehabilitative steps our client completed, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with this child discipline/assault case.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to rely on the extraordinary circumstances of the case and our client’s commitment to ongoing family counselling. He was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.L. – ICBC Investigation

Charges: Failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

Issue: Whether our client was obligated to provide a possibly incriminating  statement to the adjuster that could have led to criminal charges and a loss of  insurance coverage.

Result:  Mr. Mines was able to provide the required information to ICBC on our client’s behalf. No charges were  recommended. No loss of insurance coverage.

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

Charge: Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm.

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a criminal conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.

Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed under the Motor Vehicle Act rather than the Criminal Code. After gearing Mr. Johnson’s submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a $100 fine and a 3 year driving prohibition. No criminal record. No jail.

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

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the investigating RCMP member to not forward criminal charges after we settled the matter civilly on our client’s behalf. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.S. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Assault

Issue: Whether our client should receive the same sentence as she did for a prior offence, or a more serious sentence resulting in a criminal record.

Result: Mr. Johnston persuaded the court that a conditional discharge was appropriate, even though she had already received a similar sentence following a guilty plea to an earlier offence. In making its decision, the court also accepted Mr. Johnston’s arguments that the available evidence showed our client’s actions were not as serious as the victim claimed, and that our client’s actions were partly explained by the victim’s conduct on the date of the offence and the history of negative interactions between them. No jail. No criminal record.

R. v. J.D. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.

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

Result: Mr.Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to refer our client to the Alternative Measures Program and to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

 

R. vs. C.L. – Civil Fraud Investigation

Charge: Fraud/Theft from employer.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.

Result: Mr. Johnson was able to negotiate repayment on our client’s behalf and obtained a civil release from the employer. No charges were forwarded to Crown counsel. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Assault with a weapon; assault causing bodily harm.

Issue: Given elements of provocation, a potential defence of self-defence, and our client’s background as a vulnerable woman, whether it was in the public interest for Crown to continue the criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings upon our client succesfully completing the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.