R. vs. C.H. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Charge: Mischief to property.
Issue: Whether our client had criminal intent to damage the property in question.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines’ representations, Crown Counsel decided there was no reasonable likelihood of a conviction. They elected not to approve any charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.H. – Richmond RCMP Investigation

Charge: Possession of Stolen Property.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable liklihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines made representations to the investigating officer which ultimately resulted in the police deciding to not proceed on any charge. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Theft; Posession of Stolen Property Under $5000.
Issue: Whether, given new evidence provided by our client, the Crown had a reasonable prospect of a conviction.
Result: At the outset of the trial, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to call no evidence. The trial judge dismissed both charges. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Possession of Stolen Property.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that our client had knowledge that the property that he possessed was stolen.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the police investigation without any charges being recommended. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Assault; Mischief (x2); participating in a Riot.
Issue: Whether our client would be sententeced to the 6 to 8 month jail sentence sought by the Crown.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel that our client’s role in the Stanley Cup Riot did not include a serious assault. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court imposed a 75 day intermittent sentence.

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

Charge: Public Mischief; Obstructing Police.
Issue: Whether our client would be charged for providing a false/misleading statement to police.
Result: We were able to provide a new statement to police on our client’s behalf. File concluded with no criminal charges being forwarded.

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

Charge: Create Terrorism Hoax; Public Mischief.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of the offence, it would be appropriate for the Court to convict Mr. Mines’ client.
Result: After lengthy submissions to Crown Counsel by Mr. Mines, Crown agreed to proceed on the lesser charge of Public Mischief. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court granted his client a Discharge.