R. v. M.G. – Nanaimo Provincial Court

/in , , /by

Charges: Sexual Assault; Theft of Motor Vehicle x2; Break & Enter.

Issue: Whether or not it was in the public interest to proceed with the trial considering the reluctance oft the Crown’s central witness and rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel that ultimately led to a stay of proceedings on all counts. No criminal record.

R. v. S.G. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Obstruct peace officer.

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

Result: Given our client’s remorse and rehabilitation, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to divert our client into the Alternative Measures Program and to withdraw the charge. No criminal record.

 

R. v. S.M. – Surrey Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Uttering Threats (domestic).

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

Result: Considering our client’s unblemished history awaiting trial,  Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to withdraw the charge. No criminal record.

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

/in , /by

Charge: Assault (domestic).

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

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide relevant information to Crown on our client’s behalf which resulted in Crown entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

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

/in , /by
Charge: Assault with Weapon.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove our client was the individual who committed the offence.
Result: Our client was charged with assaulting the victim with a sword. The sole issue at trial was whether Crown could prove the identity of the attacker.  After Mr. Johnston‘s cross-examinaton of the Crown witnesses at trial, the trial judge found that our client could not be identified on the video or by eyewitnesses. Not guilty. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.A. – Kelowna Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Obstruct Police Officer.

Issue: Despite the very serious nature of the offence (threatening to cause serious harm at knifepoint) whether a jail sentence was the appropriate sentence.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to direct our client through an intensive course of rehabilitation, and was ultimately able to persuade Crown counsel and the Court to grant our client a conditional sentece to be served in the community in a residential tratment facility. No jail.

R. vs. R.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Assault.

Issue: Given the extensive rehabilitation effort of our client, whether it was appropriate for the court to grant our client a conditional discharge.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the Court that provocation was a significant factor and that, despite kicking the complainant, the appropriate sentence was a discharge on condition of “no contact” for 12 months. No criminal conviction.

R. v. K.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Uttering Threats (reduced to Peace Bond).

Issue: Given the Charter issues that arose during our client’s arrest, whether it was appropriate to continue with the criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that police had likely violated our client’s rights during his arrest and to proceed with a Peace Bond rather than the criminal charge. No criminal record.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Criminal Harassment (reduced to Peace Bond).

Issue: Given our client’s significant self-rehabilitation, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to end the criminal prosecution and to resolve the matter with a s. 810 Recognizance (“Peace Bond”). No criminal record.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).

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

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed with a Peace Bond rather than the criminal assault charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.V. – Duncan Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Assault.

Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnston was able to provide to Crown counsel about our client’s circumstances and the significant rehabilitation steps we were able to guide him through, whether it remained in the public interest to continue with the prosecution.

Result: Crown counsel accepted Mr. Johnston’s representations and concluded the matter by entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.J. – Chilliwack Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether a criminal prosecution was appropriate.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed pursuant to a s. 810 Peace Bond, and to enter a stay of proceedings on the criminal charge. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court placed our client on the Peace Bond. No criminal record.