• Vancouver at sunset

Police Investigations

Upon witnessing an event or receiving information regarding a potential criminal act, police will embark upon an investigation. Essentially, police investigations are where police gather evidence to determine if their suspect is chargeable with a criminal offence.

What happens when you become the subject of a police investigation?

We are criminal defence lawyers with over 30 years of experience, skilled in steering our clients through police investigations from beginning to end. Our goal is clear and simple: to preserve your rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These rights include:

  • The right to remain silent;
  • The right to obtain legal advice upon detention or arrest;
  • The right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure;
  • The right not to be detained or arrested arbitrarily;
  • The right to be treated by police in a fair and non-oppressive manner, including, in appropriate situations, the right to a translator or medical assistance before speaking to police.

Your Right to Remain Silent

The right to remain silent is fundamental to Canadian law. Our law dictates that is it up to the state (the police and Crown counsel) to prove crimes against an accused person. The accused has no obligation, except in very limited circumstances, to cooperate with the police whatsoever. We certainly understand that when people are confronted by police as a suspect in a criminal investigation that the vast majority of people feel intimidated and powerless. If you are under police investigation for any offence, contact us. We can act as a “buffer” between you and the police. We can communicate to the investigators on your behalf without putting you at risk of incriminating yourself. We will help you enforce your right to remain silent and your rights against self-incrimination that are guaranteed by the Charter.

Recent Successes

R. vs. C.Y. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a weapon ( reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client to resolve this matter with a s. 810 Recognizance (Peace Bond) for a period of 12 months. Stay of proceedings on the criminal charge. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Theft and Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether the pre-charge delay of 3.5 years would reduce the sentence in this $215,000 employee fraud case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge and Crown counsel that there was merit to our application for a judicial stay of proceedings based on our client's inability to properly defend the charges due to a delay of about 4 years in getting the charges approved. Notwithstanding this breach of trust, Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a plea arrangement in which our client received a 2 year conditional sentence order with a 10 pm curfew for 12 months. No monies were ordered to be repaid. No jail.

R. vs. M.P. – Abbotsford Police Investigation

Charges: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosucution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown and to ultimately persuade Crown counsel to not approve any charge in this case. No charge approves. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.H. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

Charge: Failing to stop at an accident resulting in bodily harm.
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence, our client's background and his extreme remorse, whether a jail sentence was warranted.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was ble to direct our client through a course of psychological counselling and was able to persuade Crown counsel to agree to a non-custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a 12 month conditional sentence. No jail.

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

Charges: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether Crown counsel had sufficient evidence to meet the charge approval standard.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that important evidence would be missing from a cenrtal witness and to not approve any charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.H. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

Charges: Breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing an indictable offence, wearing a mask for the purpose of committing an indictable offence, breach of release order.
Issue: Whether it would be consistent with the principles of sentencing for our client to serve his sentence in the community.
Result: Mr. Johnston provided Crown counsel with information which, along with our client's rehabilitative progress and good compliance with strict bail conditions, persuaded the Crown to seek a jail sentence of under two years for his role in a violent "home invasion". After hearing Mr. Johnston's submissions, the court agreed it would not be inconsistent with the principles of sentencing for our client to serve his sentence in the community instead of in custody. This was a significant result for our client as home invasion convictions typically result in lengthy jail sentences served in federal prison. No further time in custody.

R. vs. G.T. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnston provided Crown counsel with information which, along with our client’s progress with counselling, persuaded the Crown to gradually relax our client’s bail conditions and ultimately direct a stay of proceedings on the charge. No further prosecution. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Impaired Driving.
Issue: Whether Crown counsel could prove the impaired driving offence in light of evidence brought forward by Mr. Gauthier which suggested that our client did not voluntarily consume the drug that may have contributed to the the manner of his driving and the ensuing accident.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of dangerous operation and, rather than being convicted of impaired driving, our client was granted a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. D.H.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault causing bodily harm; mischief to property under $5000.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction on the assault causing bodily harm charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the assault causing bodily harm charge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted our client a conditional discharge and ordered restitution in relation to the smart phone that was damaged. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. W.J.M. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Upon presenting Crown counsel with a psychological report regarding our client's low risk to commit a similar act, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to not approve any criminal charges whatsoever. No prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.A. – Vancouver Provincial Court (DCC)

Charges: Assault; Assault Peace Officer (x2).
Issue: Given the circumstances of our client being severely intoxicated and acting out f character, whether a criminal conviction was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with our client's background information resulting in a joint recommendation to the Court for a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. E.L. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Aggravated Assault; Breach of Probation.
Issue: Given the context of the offences and our client's rehabilitative efforts, whether a jail sentence was appropriate.>br> Result: Mr. Johnston informed Crown counsel of the significant rehabilitative progress our client had made since the offence dates and persuaded Crown to not pursue the 16 month  jail sentence they had been seeking. Crown agreed to proceed on the less serious charge of assault causing bodily harm and to stay the remaining charges. After hearing Mr. Johnston's submissions, the court granted our client a one year conditional sentence sentence and two years of probation. This was a particularly positive outcome for our client, who had a prior conviction for a similar offence. No jail.

Can you avoid being arrested or held in police custody?

The Criminal Code provides police and Crown a wide measure of discretion in deciding whether to arrest or whether to seek an accused’s detention prior to trial. For example, s. 496 allows an officer to, rather than arrest a suspect, issue an appearance notice, directing the suspect to attend court on a future date. Similarly, s. 497 and s. 498 allow a police officer to release an arrested person by issuing an appearance notice or summons to court. Even where the suspect is arrested on a warrant, s. 499 allows police to release a suspect on a promise to appear or on an undertaking with protective conditions such as orders of “no contact,” “non-attendance,” or various types of prohibitions for items such as weapons, communication devices or other items.

When clients under investigation contact us early enough, we will endeavor to persuade police to not arrest our client at all, or to promptly release them on the least restrictive conditions possible. To succeed in these representations, we must establish that, in the circumstances, it is not necessary to hold our client in custody, including the need to:

  • Establish our client’s identity;
  • Secure or preserve evidence relating to the alleged offence;
  • Prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or another offence; or
  • To ensure the safety and security of any victim of or witness to the offence.

Representing Clients under Investigation

Whether you are suspected of theft, assault, a driving offence, a drug offence or a serious crime, the police will undoubtedly want to speak with you, to “hear your side of the story.” Before speaking to police, you should understand that, under the Charter, you are not obliged to do so. Under Canadian law, your silence cannot be used later in court to infer that you must have something to hide. Over the years we’ve had many successful cases because our client was able to properly exercise their right to remain silent. Before speaking to the police, call us.

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.