Defending your rights and freedoms.
Dedicated. Experienced. Proven results.
Contact us now.
If you’ve been charged or investigated, don’t face the problem alone. Mines and Company will strongly advocate for a successful resolution prior to your trial, or where necessary, forcefully argue for your charges to be dismissed at trial. The vast majority of our client’s cases are resolved favourably.
Send an inquiry.
The use of the internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm is not secure and does not establish a lawyer-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.
Recent Successes
R. vs. A.L. – North Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Impaired Driving Causing Death; Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: What would be the appropriate sentence, considering the aggravating (high speed, MVA record & high BAC) and the mitigating factors (genuine remorse).
Result: Rather than a sentence in the range of 8 years, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel and the Court, to impose a sentence of 40 months jail, and a 7 year driving prohibiton.
Issue: What would be the appropriate sentence, considering the aggravating (high speed, MVA record & high BAC) and the mitigating factors (genuine remorse).
Result: Rather than a sentence in the range of 8 years, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel and the Court, to impose a sentence of 40 months jail, and a 7 year driving prohibiton.
R. vs. L.T. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether the identification evidence was strong enough to support a conviction of our client, who allegedly assaulted and threatened a taxi driver.
Result: Upon Mr. Gauthier pointing out weakness in the evidence relating to identification of the suspect, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
Issue: Whether the identification evidence was strong enough to support a conviction of our client, who allegedly assaulted and threatened a taxi driver.
Result: Upon Mr. Gauthier pointing out weakness in the evidence relating to identification of the suspect, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
R. vs. L.W. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Aggravated Assault; Breach of Undertaking; Assault police officer; Mischief to property.
Issue: Given the seriousness of the facial injuries to the complainant and the ensuing assault of the arresting police officer, whether a lengthy prison sentence was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through an extensive program of rehabilitation and, after gearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions in a contested hearing, the Court granted our client a conditional sentence of only 3 months, followed by 2 years probation. No jail.
Issue: Given the seriousness of the facial injuries to the complainant and the ensuing assault of the arresting police officer, whether a lengthy prison sentence was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through an extensive program of rehabilitation and, after gearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions in a contested hearing, the Court granted our client a conditional sentence of only 3 months, followed by 2 years probation. No jail.
R. vs. L.W. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Aggravated assault; Assault police officer; assault.
Issue: Notwithstanding that the usual range of sentence is approximately 3 years for aggravated assault, whether a conditional sentence (house arrest) was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Gauthier persuaded Crown to jointly recommend a non-jail sentence. After hearing our submissions, the trial judge granted our client a 3 month conditional sentence, followed by a 2 year probation order.
Issue: Notwithstanding that the usual range of sentence is approximately 3 years for aggravated assault, whether a conditional sentence (house arrest) was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Gauthier persuaded Crown to jointly recommend a non-jail sentence. After hearing our submissions, the trial judge granted our client a 3 month conditional sentence, followed by a 2 year probation order.
R. vs. T.J. – North Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: Theft Under $5000.Issue: Whether there was substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier provided information and made representations to Crown counsel which ultimately led Crown to agree that there was no reasonable likelihood of a conviction. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
Result: Mr. Gauthier provided information and made representations to Crown counsel which ultimately led Crown to agree that there was no reasonable likelihood of a conviction. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
R. vs. M.S. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation
Charges: Assault, mischief under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the investigating RCMP officer to allow our client tp apologize to the complainant through Restorative Justice. Police did not seek to have any criminal charges approved. No criminal record.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the investigating RCMP officer to allow our client tp apologize to the complainant through Restorative Justice. Police did not seek to have any criminal charges approved. No criminal record.
R. vs. I.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to a jail for this $10,000 fraud from his employer.
Result: Notwithstanding that our client had a previous criminal conviction for a similar breach of trust offence, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to not seek a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a term of house arrest. No jail.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to a jail for this $10,000 fraud from his employer.
Result: Notwithstanding that our client had a previous criminal conviction for a similar breach of trust offence, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to not seek a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a term of house arrest. No jail.
R. vs. K.Y. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Assault by choking (x2); assault (x2); mischief under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the Court to enter a conviction against our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on only one count of common assault and to stay all remaining charges. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation for 12 months.No criminal conviction.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the Court to enter a conviction against our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on only one count of common assault and to stay all remaining charges. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation for 12 months.No criminal conviction.
R. vs. T.F. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Theft Under $5,000, Obstructing a Peace Officer, Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances.
Result: Mr. Johnston was able to direct our client to the appropriate community supports with respect to his rehabilitation. Given the positive change in our client's circumstances, the sentencing judge accepted Mr. Johnston's submission that a community based sentence was appropriate rather than the 60 jail sentence sought by the Crown. No jail.
R. vs. B.K. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court
Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to make a joint submission without the necessity of our client being required to complete counselling. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions the court granted our client the discharge. No criminal conviction.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to make a joint submission without the necessity of our client being required to complete counselling. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions the court granted our client the discharge. No criminal conviction.
R. v. R.L. – New Westminster Supreme Court
Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to continue with the prosecution in this retrial after a deadlocked jury decision.
Result: upon considering all of Mr. Mines' representations, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to continue with the prosecution in this retrial after a deadlocked jury decision.
Result: upon considering all of Mr. Mines' representations, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.
R. vs. J.H. – Richmond Provincial Court
Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to continue with the prosecution in this retrial after a deadlocked jury decision.
Result: upon considering all of Mr. Mines' representations, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to continue with the prosecution in this retrial after a deadlocked jury decision.
Result: upon considering all of Mr. Mines' representations, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.
