R. vs E.S. – Kelowna Provincial Court

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (MDMA).
Issue: Whether police had breached our client’s Charter rights when they arrested and searched him based solely on a complaint from a “concerned citizen”.
Result: Mr. Mines provided Crown Counsel with an outline of his legal arguments and, on the eve of the trial, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.S. – Vancouver Police Investigation

Charge: Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Given the civil settlement of this matter, whether it was  in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to achieve a civil settlement on behalf of our client. On this basis the police elected to not proceed with any charge. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Assault; Posssession of Cocaine.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a discharge.
Result: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the drug charge and was able to persuade the Court to grant our client an Absolute Discharge. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Possession of Cocaine.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown into allowing our client into the Alternative Measures Program. Upon completion, the Court dismissed the charge against our client. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.S. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was enough clear evidence to charge our client with assault.
Result: Upon considering the nature and quality of the complaint, along with the information about our client presented by Mr. Mines, Crown Counsel declined to approve a charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. N.N. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with this prosecution which carries a minimum mandatory 12 month driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Johnson persuaded Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a driver’s license. Our client received a $400 fine and a 4 month driving prohibition.

A.K. vs. Superintendent of British Columbia

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP).
Issue: Whether the investigating officer could prove that our client had care or control of the parked vehicle he was found sleeping in.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to successfully persuade the adjudicator that our client was not a “driver” within the Motor Vehicle Act definition. Our client’s driving prohibition was overturned, his car was released and all fees were returned, allowing him to resume driving.

R. vs. T.T. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault with a Weapon; Mischief; Posession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps taken by our client, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to stay all charges upon our client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that, based on new information provided to the Crown, that there was no raesonable prospect of a conviction. Crown entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. I.M. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to provide Crown Counsel with further evidence which weakened the strength of the Crown’s case against our client. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.X. – Richmond RCMP Investigation

Charge: Failing to Remain at the Scene of an Accident.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence for police to charge our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the investigation without our client incriminating himself. No charges were recommended.

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

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether our client had a reasonable and honest belief that the complainant had consented to the sexual activity.
Result: On the fourth day of trial, after Mr. Johnson had vigorously cross examined the complainant, the Crown entered a stay of proceedings on the criminal charges and our client entered into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.