Entries by Mike Mines

R. vs. B.L. – Victoria Provincial Court

/in /by

Charges: Assault with a weapon.

Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence and the rehabilitative steps that we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge in this case involving an alcohol fuelled  fight among a group of young men.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown and the Court  to grant our client  a conditional discharge. Our client was placed on probation with a term to continue with counselling and to perform community service work.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Pointing a firearm; assault with a firearm.

Issue: Given the context of the offence and our client’s remorse and rehabilitation, whether a jail sentence was appropriate.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to direct our client through a course of counselling and was able to persuade Crown counsel to make a joint recommendation for a community based sentence rather than the 2 year jail sentence that was Crown’s original sentencing position. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court granted our client an 18 month conditional sentence, followed by 12 months probation. No jail.

R. vs. I.M. – ICBC Insurance Fraud Investigation

/in , /by

Charges: Fraud/misrepresentation.

Issue: Whether our client actually intended to make a misleading or fraudulent automobile accident claim.

Result: After consulting with us, our client provided an explanation to the investigator that resulted in ICBC deciding to not recommend any charges.  No prosecution. No criminal record.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Theft (from employeer) Over $5000.

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

Result: Upon Mr. Mines providing information to Crown counsel that our client had fully settled the matter civilly and that there was a significant chance that a key Crown witness would be unavailable at trial, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Residential Breaking and Entering x3; Possession of a prohibited weapon; driving offences.

Issues: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed on all outstanding charges and whether 30 months jail was an appropriate sentence.

Result: Mr. Johnston was able to provide information to Crown counsel about our client’s significant rehabilitation plan and persuaded Crown to drop 8 counts against our client. Mr. Johnston persuaded the court to impose a sentence of 12 months’ jail rather than the 30 months the Crown was seeking.

R. vs. T.E. ICBC Insurance Fraud Investigation

/in , /by

Charges: Fraud/misrepresentation.

Issue: Whether our client actually intended to make a misleading or fraudulent automobile accident claim.

Result: After consulting with Mr. Gauthier, our client provided an explanation to the investigator that resulted in ICBC electing to not recommend any charges.  No prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. G.K. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).

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

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able tp rovide information about our client’s circumstances and the circumstances of the offence that led to Crown deciding to not approve any charges. No prosecution. No criminal record.

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

/in , /by

Charge: Assault with a weapon.

Issue: Given the relatively minor nature of the allegation, whether it was in the public interest for Crown to approve charges and to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Mines provided information to Crown counsel, culminating in Crown’s decision to not approve any charges byt, rather, to refer our client to the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.