Entries by Mike Mines

S.K.

Mr. Gauthier is incredibly responsible and truly cared about my girlfriend’s case and a speedy resolution. He helped us achieve a very satisfying result, Crown didn’t approve the charges. Overall, I would recommend him to anyone who is trying to find a criminal lawyer. Mr. Gauthier, please accept our deepest appreciation.
-S.K.

R. vs. J.S. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Assault (reduced to common assault.)

Issue: Whether Crown counsel could prove that our client touched the complainant for a sexual purpose.

Result: Mr. Mines was able tp persuade Crown counsel that our client did not intend to touch the complainant in a sexual manner. The Crown agreed to proceed on the lesser charge of common assault and, after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction. No jail. No sex offender registry.

R. vs. O.C. – Richmond RCMP Investigation

Charges: Theft (from Employer)) Investigation.

Issue: Whether the evidence was capable of reaching Crown counsel’s charge approval standard.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to the police investigator who, ultimately, elected not to request that any charges be approved. No criminal prosecution. No criminal

R. vs. C. E. – Courtenay Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prohibited driving charge which carries a mandatory minimum one year driving prohibition.

Result: Mr. Johnston was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed with the lesser offence of  driving without a valid licence. Our client was sentenced to a driving prohibition of only one month.

R. vs. C.K. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Forcible Confinement (domestic).

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our through, whether it was in the public interest for our client to be sentenced to a criminal record.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to proceed only on the assault charge and, after hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R.M. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside prohibition.

Issue: Whether the police report established, on balance, that our client had refused to provide a breath sample during a roadside impaired driving investigation.

Result: The adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines’ submissions that our client’s evidence was more reliable than the evidence set out in the Police Report to the Superintendent. The 90 day driving prohibition was overturned and our client was ruled eligible to resume driving.