R. vs. A.S. – Coquitlam RCMP Investigation
Charge: Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: We were able to successfully steer our client through the investigation. No charges recommended.
Charge: Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: We were able to successfully steer our client through the investigation. No charges recommended.
Charge: Arson
Issue: Whether our client had the necessary mental capacity to be convicted of a criminal offence.
Result: After hearing Mr. Johnson’s submissions, the trial judge found that our client was Not Criminally Responsible on account of a Mental Disorder. No criminal record.
Charge: Breaking and Entering; Participating in a Riot.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: Notwithstanding our client’s participation in the infamous Stanley Cup Riot, after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court granted a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.
Charge: Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate in this $36,000 emloyee fraud case.
Result: Notwithstanding the breach of trust, the Court granted the “unusual result” of a suspended sentence with 12 months probation and a restitution order. No jail or house arrest.
Charge: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.
Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program prior to any charge being approved. No criminal record.
Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken and given the support of the complainant, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the trial commencing. No criminal record.
Charges: Production of Marijuana; PPT Marijuana and MDMA.
Issue: Whether the search warrant was valid; whether our client had standind to challenge the search; whether Crown could prove our client had control over the 1500 plant grow operation and the MDMA.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown that their case was flawed. Complete stay of proceedings prior to the second day of the trial. No criminal record.
Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Despite the seriousness of the asault, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to stay the criminal charge upon our client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.
Charge: Assault; Threatening.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to the mandatory minimm 12 month driving prohibition.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a valid licence. Five month driving prohibition imposed (concurrent with an existing prohibition).
I’m so grateful for Ian, he truly cares about his clients. He’s as real as it gets. It’s nice to see a lawyer who’s passionate for the best outcome for his client. I can’t recommend this place enough!
Our client had taken responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty in Richmond Provincial Court where he was granted a conditional discharge. Upon being threatened and taunted by his roommate, our client kicked in the door to the roommate’s doo=r and held a meat cleaver to his throat. The Crown appealed sentence. At the sentence […]