Entries by Mike Mines

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

/in , , /by

Charge: Robbery, uttering threats, possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose

Issues: Whether there was a reasonable chance our client would be convicted at trial, and whether there was public interest in continuing to prosecute our client.

Result: Given Mr. Johnston’s representations on behalf of our client and the unusual circumstances of the offence, the Crown agreed there would be difficulty establishing our client was the one who committed the alleged offences, and that it was not in the public interest to continue prosecuting our client. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

 

R. v. M.M. – Merritt Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Assault, breach of release order (x3)

Issue: Whether there was a reasonable prospect our client could be convicted of all charges at trial, and what the appropriate sentence would be.

Result: Mr. Johnston persuaded the Crown they were unlikely to prove most of the charges at trial given issues with the credibility and reliability of Crown witnesses and the fact our client had a valid defence to one of the charges. Our client pled guilty to one count of breach, which he had been prepared to admit from the outset, and the Crown directed stays of proceedings on all other counts. Given information Mr. Johnston provided about our client’s circumstances at the time of the offences and his rehabilitative efforts since, the Crown also  agreed to support a time-served sentence with no probation, even though our client had a lengthy criminal record and had recently been convicted of several breaches for which he had received far longer jail sentences. No further jail. No probation.

 

 

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

/in , /by

Charges: Sexual Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).

Issue: Whether the complainant’s evidence would be credible and reliable in this historic sexual assault allegation. Also, whether there was a public interest in continuing the prosecution against our client who was a youth at the time of the allegations.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel about our client’s circumstances and the circumstances of the incident. He persuaded Crown to make a peace bond application, rather than continuing the criminal prosecution. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. Y.T. – Richmond Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Assault; Assault by Choking.

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.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , , /by

Charges: Forcible Entry; Assault.

Issue: Given our client’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged incident, whether ther was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.

Result: Upon considering the information provided and representations made by Mr. Gauthier, Crown counsel directed a stay of proceedings, brining the matter to an end. no criminal record.

R. v. B.C. – Prince Rupert Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Sexual Assault.

Issue: Whether Crown could prove that the complainant was credible and reliable in this three day trial that involved an allegation of sexual assault.

Result: After Mr. Gauthier vigorously cross examined the complainant, the trial judge accepted Mr. Gauthier’s submissions and found our client not guilty. An acquittal was entered. No criminal record; no jail time.

R. v. A.B. – Richmond Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Theft Under $5000.

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

Result: After considering Mr. Gauthier’s representations regarding the evidence and our client’s circumstances, Crown withdrew the charge. No criminal record.

R. v. J.C. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , , /by

Charges: Uttering a threat; Posession of a weapon (knife) for a dangerous purpose.

Issue: Given our client’s circumstances and the circumstances of the incident, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide Crown with background information about our client and the incident which caused Crown to conclude it was not in the public interest to continue the prosecution. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution in this $900 shoplifting case.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel about our client’s personal circumstances, resulting in Crown referring our client to the Alternative Measures program. No criminal record.

R. v. J.Z. & Q.M. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

/in , /by

Charges: Fraud Over $5,000.

Issue: Whether our client’s were responsible for approximately $15,000 in false claims unknowingly made in their names by a health care provider.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to settle with the insurance provider. No criminal charges were forwarded against our clients. Mr. Gauthier was also able to assist with the first steps of recovering the funds from the dishonest health care provider. No criminal record.

R. v. V.N. – Surrey Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Sexual Assault (police investigation).

Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier opposed the police application to extend the time period they could continue to retain seized evidence and he provided advice to our client in steering him through the investigation. The matter concluded with no criminal charges being forwarded to Crown. No criminal record.

R. v. R.T. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

/in , /by

Charge: Insurance Fraud Under $5,000 investigation.

Issue: Given our client’s rehabilitation and repayment of disputed claims, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges forwarded. No criminal record.