• Vancouver at sunset

Bail Hearings

While there are Criminal Code provisions that permit a suspect to avoid being arrested or held in police custody, in serious cases, police will forward their report to Crown and include a request to apply to the court for the accused to be detained in custody pending their trial. In British Columbia, there can be waits of several months for a trial date, even when the accused is detained. As defence lawyers, we certainly appreciate that criminal law presumes our client to be innocent unless the Crown is able to prove, at trial, that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, because our client is presumed innocent, we will always make forceful arguments that they should be released from pre-trial custody on reasonable terms.

Recent Successes

R. vs. R.C. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Criminal Harassment; Breach of a recognizance.
Issue: Whether it was appropriate to resolve this domestic harassment by ending the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charges upon. our client entering into a Peace Bond for a period of 12 months. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.N. – RCMP Investigation

Charge: Possession of child pornography.
Issue: Whether police would be able to prove that our client was the only person that had access to the IP address on which the unlawful material was downloaded.
Result: Mr. Mines provided information to the police investigator that led the investigator to close the file with no charges recommended against our client. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. D. K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for the court to enter a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through a course of rehabilitation and was able to persuade Crown counsel and the Court to grant our client a conditional discharge.  No criminal conviction.

R. vs. T. F. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Breach of Probation (no contact).
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client intended to breach the "no contact" order that he was subject to.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that our client bumped into the complainant accidentally. Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.X. – Insurance Fraud Investigation.

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: In light of the rehabilitative steps our client completed, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with this child discipline/assault case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to rely on the extraordinary circumstances of the case and our client's commitment to ongoing family counselling. He was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: In light of the rehabilitative steps our client completed, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with this child discipline/assault case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to rely on the extraordinary circumstances of the case and our client's commitment to ongoing family counselling. He was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.L. – ICBC Investigation

Charges: Failing to remain at the scene of an accident.
Issue: Whether our client was obligated to provide a possibly incriminating  statement to the adjuster that could have led to criminal charges and a loss of  insurance coverage.
Result:  Mr. Mines was able to provide the required information to ICBC on our client's behalf. No charges were  recommended. No loss of insurance coverage.

R. vs. R. L. – New Westminster Supreme Court (jury).

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: The credibility and reliability of the complainant and  our client who both testified in this historic sexual assault case.
Result: After  9 hours of deliberations, the jury was deadlocked and could not reach an unanimous decision. No conviction. The trial judge remitted the matter back to court to set a new trial.

R. vs. S.M.A. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a criminal conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed under the Motor Vehicle Act rather than the Criminal Code. After gearing Mr. Johnson's submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a $100 fine and a 3 year driving prohibition. No criminal record. No jail.

R. vs. S.G. – Coquitlam RCMP Investigation

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the investigating RCMP member to not forward criminal charges after we settled the matter civilly on our client's behalf. No criminal record.

R. v. J.D. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to continue with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr.Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to refer our client to the Alternative Measures Program and to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.  

R. vs. C.L. – Civil Fraud Investigation

Charge: Fraud/Theft from employer.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to negotiate repayment on our client's behalf and obtained a civil release from the employer. No charges were forwarded to Crown counsel. No criminal record.

Showing “Cause”

A term that arises in the context of a bail hearing is “show cause.” This term refers to the burden placed (normally on the Crown) to demonstrate to the court to justify why the accused should be detained in custody. In order to show cause for detention, the Crown must satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities, that there are reasonable grounds to do so. The three grounds that are considered include:

The Primary Ground: that the detention of the accused is necessary to ensure the accused’s attendance at court on future dates.

In cases where our client has no history of failing to attend court or no history of failing to obey court imposed conditions, we will argue that the Crown has failed to meet their burden and that our client is entitled to be released from custody.

The Secondary Ground: that the detention of the accused is necessary for the protection and safety of the public from the risk of the accused committing further offences, including interfering with or intimidating witnesses.

In cases where our client has no history of committing criminal offences, we will argue that the Crown has failed to meet their burden and that our client is entitled to be released from custody.

The Tertiary Ground: that the detention of the accused is necessary to maintain public confidence in the court to administer justice. Under this ground, the court must consider circumstances including, the apparent strength of the Crown’s case, the gravity of the offence and whether a firearm was used in the commission of the offence.

In cases where the Crown seeks detention on the tertiary ground, we will put forth a proposed release plan that will ensure that our client obeys terms and conditions to ensure community safety. We will advance arguments that “public confidence in the administration of justice” includes the notion that a well-informed public knows and appreciates that Canadian law entitles accused persons to be presumed innocent prior to a finding of guilt at trial.

Reverse Onus

While the Crown generally has the onus of proving that a detention order is necessary, there are some situations that the Criminal Code sets out that the accused has the burden of justifying their release. The conditions that trigger the “reverse onus” provisions include:

  • Where Crown alleges that an accused who has already been released has breached one or more of their release conditions (i.e. a “no contact” order);
  • Where Crown alleges that an accused who has been released has committed a subsequent offence;
  • Where the accused is charged with certain serious offences, such as firearms, weapons, drug trafficking, criminal organization or terrorism-related offences.

The existence of any of the conditions which invoke the “reverse onus” provisions make it significantly more difficult to be granted bail. It is, therefore, imperative to obtain the assistance of skilled and experienced counsel.

Preparing for a Bail Hearing

Our role as defence counsel in preparing for a bail hearing is to gather as much information as possible regarding the nature and strength of the Crown’s case. We will obtain as much of the police report to Crown as quickly as it is made available. We will meet with our client (including a visit to police lock-up or jail if necessary) and our client’s family to obtain information and to develop a release plan. In some situations, it may be necessary to raise a cash deposit or to arrange a surety to guarantee our client’s compliance with release conditions and return to court. Surety bail involves a person, usually a relative or close friend of the accused, who acts as a guarantor by pledging real estate property to secure a set financial amount (perhaps in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars) that is payable to the court in the event that the accused breaches a condition or fails to return to court.

In preparing for a bail hearing, we will assemble all relevant information and present it to the court in our proposal to have our client released from custody on the least restrictive conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.