Charge: Sexual Interference (x3).
Issue: Whether, given the historical nature of the offence and the circumstances of Mr. Mines’ client, it was necessary for the Crown and court to consider a jail sentence.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions on his client’s behalf, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines’ client a suspended sentence and placed him on probation for 15 months. Crown Counsel stayed two of the charges.
Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to release Mr. Mines’ client from custody.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the Provincial Court Judge to release his client on surety bail.
Charge: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Given the circumstances, what was the appropriate sentence for Mr. Mines’ client who had a sexual relationship with a minor.
Result: The Crown had sought a sentence of one year jail. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions on his client’s behalf, the trial judge agreed that a three month intermittent sentence was appropriate, allowing Mr. Mines’ client to maintain his employment.
Charge: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines’ client would be sentenced to jail in this breach of trust situation.
Result: Crown Counsel sought a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions on the Sex Assault charge, the trial judge granted Mr Mines’ client a six month Conditional Sentence, followed by probation. No jail.
Charge: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: Upon considering Mr. Mines’ representations and considering the strength of its case, Crown Counsel decided to enter a Stay of Proceedings prior to the trial date. No criminal record.
Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest and whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the criminal charge upon his client entering into a s.810 Recognizance (“Peace Bond”). No criminal record.
Charge: Importing Obscene Material into Canada; Possession of Child Pornography.
Issue: Whether, pending the investigation, it was appropriate for police to return Mr. Mines’ client’s seized passport to him.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade police to return his client’s passport.
Charge: Internet Luring.
Issue: Whether the police investigator had sufficient evidence to recommend a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide the investigator with information on his client’s behalf which resulted in no criminal charge being approved.
Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether police would recommend that charges be approved.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through a police investigation which ultimately resulted in no charges being laid. No criminal record.
Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether police would recommend that charges be approved.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through a police investigation, which ultimately resulted in no charges being laid. No criminal record.
Charge: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines’ representations and the lack of any corroborating forensic evidence, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.
Charge: Possession of Child Pornography; Importing Obscene Material.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines’ client had knowledge of the contents of DVDs that he purchased in China and brought into Canada.
Result: After making submissions to police, Canada Border Service investigators and Crown Counsel, Mr. Mines’ client was not charged with any criminal or Customs Act offence. No record.
A huge thanks to Michael Mines for getting this criminal charge brought to a fair and appropriate conclusion with a criminal charge being dropped. Michael knows his profession and is well versed in criminal law to seek the best possible outcome for an individual like me, who at 77 years, simply made an honest mistake. […]
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 […]
