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

Charge: Assault with a Weapon (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines’ submissions, Crown agreed that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Assault with a Weapon; Forcible Confinement.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines’ submissions, Crown Counsel agreed that its case was weak and there was no substantial likelihood that our client would be convicted. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Driving While Prohibited (MVA).
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to the mandatory minimum 12 month driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of Driving without a Valid License. The court imposed a $500 fine. No driving prohibition.

R.M. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Charge: Review of 90 day Administrative Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the investigating police officer had complied with the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Result: Upon considering Mr. Mines’ submissions, the adjudicator agreed that the police report to the Superintendent was flawed. In the result, the driving prohibition was revoked and our client was permitted to resume driving.

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

Charge: Possession of a controlled substance.
Issue: Whether the marijuhana was possesed for the purpose of trafficking or was for personal use.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown that the 5 ounces of marijuhana was for personal use and, given our client’s circumstances, to allow him into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.S. – Vancouver provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Based on the complainant’s initial inconsistent statement, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to not proceed with the charge. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Theft Under $5000; Fraud Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether a jail sentence was warranted in the circumstances.
Result: Despite having a prior record for a similar offence, our client took rehabilitatve steps which allowed us to persuade Crown counsel to not seek  jail. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court granted her a six month conditional sentence with no house arrest or curfew.

J.L. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Charge: Review of Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for our client to be prohibited for 5 months.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to  persuade the adjudicator to reduce the driving prohibition to 3 months.

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

Charge: Theft Under $5000; Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the Crown to continue with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Notwithstanding that our client was accused of assaulting the loss prevention officer that apprehended her for shoplifting, we were able to persuade Crown to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program. No charge approved. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm (domestic).
Issue: Considering our client’s past criminal record and the significant injury to the complainant, whether our client would be sentenced to the jail sentence  sought by Crown.
Result: After hearing Mr. Johnson’s submissions, the trial judge sentenced our client to 2 years probation with various conditions. No jail.

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

Charge: Theft under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Based on the rehabilitative steps our client initiated, we were able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow her into the Alternative Measures Program without approving any charge. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Wheter it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to issue a Caution Letter without approving any criminal charge. No criminal record.