Entries by Mike Mines

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

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. D.N. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Robbery, Assault With Weapon x 2, Assault Causing Bodily Harm

Issue: Whether the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was our client who had committed the offences.

Result: Mr. Johnston was able to persuade Crown counsel that there was no reasonable likelihood our client could be identified as the person captured on video committing the offences. If our client were convicted at trial, the Crown would have asked the court to impose a sentence of 2 years’ jail or more. Instead, the Crown directed a stay of proceedings rather than continuing the criminal prosecution. No record. No further jail.

 

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

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. R.A.M. – New Westminster Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).

Issue: Whether the complainant’s evidence would be credible and reliable at trial, and whether there was public interest in continuing to prosecute our client.

Result: Mr. Johnston was able to provide information to Crown counsel about our client’s circumstances and the circumstances of the incident which persuaded the Crown to agree to resolve the matter by applying for a peace bond rather than continuing the criminal prosecution. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. B.E. – Surrey Provincial Court

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

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

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.

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

Charge: Carrying a Concealed Weapon.

Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnston was able to provide to Crown counsel regarding the circumstances of the incident and our client’s background, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Johnston persuaded Crown counsel that there was insufficient public interest, leading Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. M.A. Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Insurance Fraud Under $5000.

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

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

R. v. E.N. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Fraud Under $5000.

Issue: Given the information Mr. Gauthier 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. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown that there wa sno substantial likelihood of a conviction resulting ultimately in Crown declining to approve a charge. No criminal record.