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

Charge: Sex Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge, given that our client mistook social cues and touched the complainant’s breast without her consent.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve any charge upon our client successfully completing Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. vs. G.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Commit an Indecent Act.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove that Mr. Mansoori-Dara’s client had the necessary level of intent to be convicted of the offence.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of Causing a Public Disturbance. The Court granted a suspended sentence with 3 months probation.

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

Charges: Sex Assault
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove that the assault was for a sexual purpose.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade the Crown that his client did not have the necessary level of intent to be guilty of a criminal offence. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Sex Assault; Assault.
Issue: Whether Crown would be able to prove that there was no consent given, resulting in a conviction for sex assault.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to stay the sex assault charge and proceed only on the lesser charge of common assault. The Crown originally sought a significant jail sentence, but agreed to a joint submission of one day (less time served) and probation.

R. vs. G.L. – RCMP Investigation

Charges: Importing Child Pornography.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines’ client had knowledge of the material found by customs officers on a computer hard drive that he brought into Canada.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through the investigation with no charge being recommended by police.

R. vs. J.B. – Surrey RCMP Investigation

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether the complainant had consented to the sexual act.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through the police investigation which concluded with no criminal charge being recommended to Crown Counsel.

R. vs. B.B. – Vancouver Police

Charge: Sex Assault; Sexual Interference
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove the identity of the perpetrator of a sexual assault.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to guide his client through the police investigation which, in the result, ended with Crown Counsel concluding the file with no charges being approved. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for Mr. Mines’ client to have believed that the complainant had consented to the sexual act.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines’ representations on behalf of his client, the Crown agreed to proceed by way of a Peace Bond and to stay the criminal charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.B. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

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.

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

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.

R. vs. D. N. – Williams Lake Provincial Court

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.

R. vs. M.T. – New Westminster Provincial Court

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.