You are here: / / Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose
  • Vancouver at night

Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose

The Charge

Section 2 of the Criminal Code defines a weapon as “anything used, designed to be used or intended for use in causing death or injury to any person” or “for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person.” Weapons include, therefore, obvious things such as firearms and knives. Depending on the context in which they are possessed, “weapons” might also include such things as a rock, a baseball bat, or even a potted plant or a pencil.

Under s. 88 of the Code, it is unlawful to carry or possess a weapon (or imitation) for a purpose that is dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence. The crucial element of this offence is the purpose for which the accused person has the weapon. The Crown must prove that the accused’s purpose for possessing the weapon was, in fact, for a dangerous purpose. The court must examine all of the surrounding circumstances in order to infer whether or not the accused possessed the weapon for a purpose that is dangerous to the public peace.

Everyone who commits the offence possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose is guilty of an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years in jail, or a summary offence with a maximum sentence of 2 years less a day.

The Investigation

Actual use of a weapon is not an essential element of this offence. Rather, the Crown need only prove that the weapon was possessed for the purpose of endangering the public. The purpose for which the accused had the weapon must, therefore, be determined by police. The investigating officer will certainly take statements from the complainant(s) and any witnesses. Police will also very likely seek to obtain an explanation from their suspect. They will seek to verify the complaint by getting the suspect to admit they possessed the item alleged to be a “weapon” and they will seek to get the suspect to admit that their purpose was to endanger someone. This is where we as experienced criminal defence lawyers, can help by providing advice to our clients regarding their rights under the Charter, including their right to remain silent.

Recent Successes

R. v. Y.T. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Assault; Assault by Choking.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with criminal charges.
Result: After providing Crown counsel with our client's  positive psychological counselling report, Mr. Gauthier  was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Forcible Entry; Assault.
Issue: Given our client's personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged incident, whether ther was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Upon considering the information provided and representations made by Mr. Gauthier, Crown counsel directed a stay of proceedings, brining the matter to an end. no criminal record.

R. v. B.C. – Prince Rupert Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove that the complainant was credible and reliable in this three day trial that involved an allegation of sexual assault.
Result: After Mr. Gauthier vigorously cross examined the complainant, the trial judge accepted Mr. Gauthier's submissions and found our client not guilty. An acquittal was entered. No criminal record; no jail time.

R. v. A.B. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: After considering Mr. Gauthier's representations regarding the evidence and our client's circumstances, Crown withdrew the charge. No criminal record.

R. v. J.C. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Uttering a threat; Posession of a weapon (knife) for a dangerous purpose.
Issue: Given our client's circumstances and the circumstances of the incident, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide Crown with background information about our client and the incident which caused Crown to conclude it was not in the public interest to continue the prosecution. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. M.M. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution in this $900 shoplifting case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel about our client's personal circumstances, resulting in Crown referring our client to the Alternative Measures program. No criminal record.

R. v. J.Z. & Q.M. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud Over $5,000.
Issue: Whether our client's were responsible for approximately $15,000 in false claims unknowingly made in their names by a health care provider.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to settle with the insurance provider. No criminal charges were forwarded against our clients. Mr. Gauthier was also able to assist with the first steps of recovering the funds from the dishonest health care provider. No criminal record.

R. v. V.N. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault (police investigation).
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier opposed the police application to extend the time period they could continue to retain seized evidence and he provided advice to our client in steering him through the investigation. The matter concluded with no criminal charges being forwarded to Crown. No criminal record.

R. v. R.T. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Insurance Fraud Under $5,000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client's rehabilitation and repayment of disputed claims, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges forwarded. No criminal record.

R. v. G. A.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction in this case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that, given the lack of cooperation by the complainant, that there was no prospect of a conviction. Crown counsel did not approve any charges and, on Mr. Mines' representations, agreed to cancel the scheduled court date and to direct police to cancel our client's Undertaking to Appear. No criminal record.

R. v. L.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Mischief Over $5000.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove the value of damage alleged to have been caused by our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that because it could not accurately prove the value of damage, and that our client had taken appropriate steps of self-rehabilitation,  Crown elected to not approve any charges. No criminal record.

R. v. H.K. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution in this "road rage" case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel about our client's personal circumstances and the circumstances of the incident which resulted in Crown staying the charge after our client completed Alternative Measures. No criminal record.
View All

The Defence

Unreasonable Search

Section 8 of the Charter guarantees that people must be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The role of defence counsel in any search case is to analyze the actions of the investigating police officers to test whether their search was, in fact, lawful and authorized by the Charter. In some situations, police must obtain pre-authorization from a justice or judge in the form of a search warrant. Where police overreach their authority, and conduct a search based on mere suspicion, rather than probable grounds, we will apply to the court under s.24(2) of the Charter to have the “fruits of the search” excluded from the trial. Without the admission of the weapon into the trial, the court will likely find insufficient evidence to convict.

Lack of Possession

In many situations, people are arrested on weapons charges with the weapon not directly in their possession. For example, a knife might be in the glovebox or trunk of the car. It might be that the accused is not driving their own car but, rather, the car of a friend or relative. In these situations, absent any incriminating confession, it may be possible to argue that the accused had no knowledge of the weapon or that they had no control over it. As experienced defence lawyers, we understand the high standard that the law requires when prosecuting weapons offences. We are dedicated to protecting our client’s rights.

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.

Connect