R. vs. P.N. – Surrey Provincial Court

/in , , /by

Charge: Dangerous Driving Causing Death.

Issue: Whether Crown could prove that our client had the necessary intent to prove that she was guilty of the criminal charge.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed under the Motor Vehicle Act rather than the Criminal Code. After hearing Mr. Mines’  submissions, the Court sentenced our client to 60 days to be served on weekends. The Crown had originally sought a sentence in the range of 2 years.

R. vs. L.A. – New Westminster Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Breach of Probation (from domestic assault charge).

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to prosecute our client for failing to report and complete counselling.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to guide our client back onto an alternative course of rehabilitation and persuaded Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal conviction.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Uttering Threats; Extortion.

Issue: Given the age of the charges and the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether a jail sentence was appropriate.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to seek a non custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court granted our client a suspended sentence and placed him on probation for 16 months. No jail.

R. vs. K.A. – Western Communities Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Assault (domestic).

Issues: Given the information we provided to Crown counsel regarding the complainant’s past unlawful behaviour toward our client, whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.

Result: As a result of the information we provided, Crown counsel withdrew the charge. No further bail restrictions. No criminal record.

R. vs. E.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges:  Assault (by choking); Mischief.

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. Gauthier was able to provide information including our client’s counselling records to crown counsel and persuaded Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.S. – Richmond RCMP Investigation

/in , /by

Charge: Criminal harassment.

Issue: Whether there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe that our client had committed a criminal offence.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide police with video and text message records that caused the investigator to conclude that a criminal prosecution was not appropriate. No charge was approved.

R. vs. R.C. – Surrey Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Criminal Harassment; Breach of a recognizance.

Issue: Whether it was appropriate to resolve this domestic harassment by ending the criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charges upon. our client entering into a Peace Bond for a period of 12 months. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.N. – RCMP Investigation

/in , /by

Charge: Possession of child pornography.

Issue: Whether police would be able to prove that our client was the only person that had access to the IP address on which the unlawful material was downloaded.

Result: Mr. Mines provided information to the police investigator that led the investigator to close the file with no charges recommended against our client. No jail. No criminal record.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Assault; Uttering Threats.

Issue: Whether it was appropriate for the court to enter a conviction.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through a course of rehabilitation and was able to persuade Crown counsel and the Court to grant our client a conditional discharge.  No criminal conviction.

R. vs. T. F. – Surrey Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Breach of Probation (no contact).

Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client intended to breach the “no contact” order that he was subject to.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that our client bumped into the complainant accidentally. Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.X. – Insurance Fraud Investigation.

/in , /by

Charge: Insurance fraud under $5,000 investigation.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to negotiate civil repayment and obtained a civil Release, ensuring that the matter would end. No criminal charges.

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

/in , /by

Charge: Assault (domestic).

Issue: In light of the rehabilitative steps our client completed, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with this child discipline/assault case.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to rely on the extraordinary circumstances of the case and our client’s commitment to ongoing family counselling. He was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.