• 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. M.M. - Courtenay Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault (police investigation).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade police that it was in the parties' best interest and not contrary to the public interest to resolve this matter through Restorative Justice. No charges were approved. no criminal record.

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

Charges: Fraud Under $5000 (police investigation).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to assist our client to make civil restitution and to persuade police to not recommend any criminal charges. No charge was approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.P - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Breach of Undertaking (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay all of the criminal charges and to allow our client to enter into a peace bond. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. F.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Dangerous Driving; Obstruct/Resist Arrest (Reduced to MVA charge).
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove that our client had the necessary element of  intent for a criminal conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on a lesser charge under the Motor Vehicle Act of speeding relative to the road conditions. Our client was sentenced to a driving prohibition. No criminal record.

R. vs. E.Z. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a criminal conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown that there were flaws in the evidence and that a conviction was highly unlikely. No charges were approved. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Assault; Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether our client was acting to defend his spouse when he physically engaged with the complainant.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide further evidence to Crown counsel which persuaded Crown that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction. Complete stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.M. - New Westminster Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether there was merit in moving forward with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to provide information to Crown counsel that led to Crown concluding there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction. Stay of proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.M. - Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Charges: Sexual Interference; Invitation to Sexual Touching; Assault.
Issue: Whether the evidence would lead to charges being approved.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to guide our client through the police investigation and to ultimately persuade the investigating officer that the evidence of the complaint was not reliable. No criminal charges were forwarded to Crown counsel.

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

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm (Reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: After directing our client through a course of self rehabilitation, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charge upon our client being placed on a peace bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.K. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Driving while Prohibited.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to the mandatory minimum 12 month driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a valid drivers license. Our client was sentenced to a fine. No driving prohibition.

R. v. P.Z. - North Vancouver RCMP Investigation

Charges: Sexual Interference; Invitation to Sexual Touching; Assault.
Issue: Whether the evidence would lead to charges being approved.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to guide our client through the police investigation and to ultimately persuade the investigating officer that the evidence of the complaint was not reliable. No criminal charges were approved.

R. vs. N.D. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charges: Invitation to Sexual Touching (x2).
Issues: To what extent the court would consider our client's remorse and rehabilitation when passing sentence.
Result: Notwithstanding that our client was in a position of trust and the Crown had originally sought a sentence of 12 months jail, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel and the Court that the appropriate sentence was 90 days, to be served on weekends.

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.