R. v. S.W. – Courtenay RCMP Investigation

Charges: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking.

Issue: Whether the search of the vehicle and our client was lawful.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the investigation and made representations to police that the search was unlawful. Police declined to recommend any  charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.F. – Provincial Court of Newfoundland

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Marijuana).

Issue: Whether it there was a substantial likelihood of obtaining a conviction.

Result: Upon considering Mr. Johnson’s representations, Crown counsel concluded that there was no longer a likelihood of conviction. Crown withdrew the charge, bringing the matter to an end. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.B. – Vancouver Police Investigation

Charge: Possession of proceeds of crime; drug investigation.

Issue: Whether there was any lawful authority to arrest our client and seize funds from him.

Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade the investigating officer that there was no basis to search our client and to return the $2400 cash that he had seized. No charges approved. Not criminal record.

R. vs. S.S. – Nelson Provincial Court

Charge: Possession for the purpose of trafficking.
Issue: Whether, given the large quantity of cocaine and other drugs found upon execution of the search warrant, whether it was appropriate for the court to release our client on bail.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions on our client’s behalf, the Court agreed to release our client on surety bail with strict conditions.

R. vs. T.P. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (heroin, fentanyl, cocaine).
Issue: Whether our youthful client would be sentenced to the 2 year jail sentence sought by Crown counsel.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to direct our client through a successful rehabilitation program. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court agreed that there were “special circumstances” that permitted a sentence below the usual range of 18-36 months imprisonment for this offence. Our client was granted a suspended sentence and was placed on probation for 3 years. No jail.

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

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (MDMA).
Issue: Whether the vehicle search was lawful; Whether it was appropriate for the Court to grant the Crown’s adjournment application of the trial.
Result: Mr. Mines opposed the Crown’s adjournment application and the court refused to grant it. Crown entered a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No jail; no criminal record.

R. vs. M.P. – Agassiz RCMP Investigation

Charge: Production of illicit cannabis oil.
Issue: Whether there were reasonable grounds to proceed with a criminal prosecution and a civil forfeiture application.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to steer our client through the police investigation and, in the result, no charges were forwarded to Crown nor was the matter referred to the Director of Civil Forfeiture. We were able to get the 2 recreational vehicles that were seized returned to our client. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.N. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Production of Cannabis.
Issue: The Crown was seeking a 9 to 12 month jail sentence for our client, who was convicted of producing over 700 cannabis plants.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade the trial judge to impose a $500 fine and to place our client on probation for 12 months. No jail.

R. vs. M.G. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Cocaine, Heroin, etc.)
Issue: Whether police lawfully searched our client and the interior of his car.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the investigation, which concluded with no charge being recommended.

R. vs. C.O. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Possession of a Controlled Substance (cocaine).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that, given our client’s circumstances and the circumstances of the offence, that it was not in the public interest to proceed with the charge. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.K. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Possession for the purpose of trafficking (fentanyl, crystal meth and MDMA) in a prison.
Issue: Whether the drugs were possessed by our client for the purpose of trafficking or for personal use.
Result: After a 3 day trial, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade the Crown that our client was guilty of only the lesser offence of simple possession. Rather than being sentenced to a two year mandatory minimum jail sentence, the trial judge released our client from custody.

R. vs. E.N. – Provincial Court of Quebec

Charge: Conspiracy to Traffic, Trafficking, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (heroin and cocaine).
Issue: Whether our client intended to agree to bring several grams of heroin and cocaine into a federal penitentiary.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with information about the circumstances of the offence and of our client – essentially that she was manipulated by the co-accused. Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to allow our client to plead guilty to the lesser offence of simple possession and to make a joint submission for a 6 month conditional sentence order. Rather than a minimum 2 year mandatory sentence on the conspiracy charge,  our client received no jail time whatsoever.