• 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. D.R. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the assault charge. Our client entered into a 12 month Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.Z. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to direct our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with this prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to provide Crown counsel with information that allowed him to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for Crown to proceed with the prosecution of this offence which carries a 12 month mandatory minimum driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a valid licence. Our client received a $500 fine and a 30 day driving prohibition.

R. vs. M.L. - Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client sexually interfered with his niece.
Result: After a 6 day trial, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade the trial judge that there was reasonable doubt as to the complainant's credibility and reliability. Not guilty. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.R. - Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with information that led Crown to resolve this matter with a Caution Letter. No charges were approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.R. - Vancouver Youth Court

Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm; Assault with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether our client was acting in self defence when he injured the complainant with a knife during an altercation.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel that resulted in Crown declining to approve any charges. No criminal record.

R. v. C.C. - Surrey provincial Court

Charges: Impaired Driving, Dangerous Driving Causing Death. Issues: Whether police breached our client's Charter rights during the investigation; whether the court would accept the Crown's sentencing submission.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that police breached our client's right against an unlawful seizure of his breath samples. This resulted in the Crown's inability to prove the Impaired Driving / Over .08 offences.  The Crown had originally been seeking up to 4.5 years jail, but sought a one year jail sentence on the Dangerous Driving Causing Death charge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court found that 5 months was the appropriate sentence.

R. vs. B.S. - North Vancouver RCMP Investigation

.Charge: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the proposed charge.
Result: After Mr. Johnson made  representations to the investing officer, police advised that no charges would be forwarded to Crown counsel. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge, which carries a one year mandatory minimum driving prohibition upon conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a valid drivers license. The court agreed with Mr. Mines' submissions and imposed a fine but did not impose any driving prohibition.

R. vs. N.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client to plead to the lesser offence of driving without a valid driver's license. Rather than face a mandatory minimum 12 month driving prohibition, our client was sentenced to a fine. No driving prohibition.  

R. vs. J.C. - Quesnel Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution given the rehabilitative steps we guided our client through.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charge upon our client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.C. - Surrey RCMP Investigation

Charge: Theft/Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution in this $400,000 fraud/theft from employer case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to reach a civil settlement with the complainant and was able to persuade police to not forward any criminal charges. No criminal conviction; no jail.

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.