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. A.K. & N.L. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Fraud Over $5000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client's cooperation and repayment of the disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a police investigation and a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges recommended. No criminal record.

R. v. H.L. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Fraud Over $5000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client's cooperation and repayment of the disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a police investigation and a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges recommended. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Given our client's circumstances and the circumstances of the allegation, whether it was in the public interest for Crown to continue the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown that persuaaded Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. C.W. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault x2 (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution and whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel which led to Crown deciding to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. S.N. – Quesnel Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (by choking); assault; mischief to property.
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution and whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel which led to Crown deciding to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. S.G. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether the police investigation met the Crown's charge approval standard.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to the RCMP investigator which ultimately led to police recommending that no charges be approved. No criminal prosecution. No further "no contact" condition. File closed.

R. v. M.L. – Prince George Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was contrary to the public interest for our client to be discharged on conditions.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to the Court which resulted in our client being granted a conditional discharge rather than the conviction sought by Crown counsel.

R. v. L.C. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Fraud Over $5000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client's cooperation and repayment of the disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a police investigation and a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges recommended. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the information Mr. Mines provided to Crown about the circumstances of the alleged incident, whether there was a substatial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to not approve any charge with respect to this matter. No further bail conditions. No criminal record.

R. v. R.T. – Quesnel Provincial Court

Charges: Assault ; Mischief Under $5000 (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given our client's personal circumstances, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charges upon our client agreeing to a 12 month peace bond and a 5 year firearms prohibition. No criminal record.

R. v. R. G. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Charge: Criminal Harassment.
Issue: Given our client's lack of criminal history and the lack of a police warning before the arrest and recommending the harassment charge, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade police to issue a warning to our client rather than proceeding with acriminal prosecution. No criminal record.

R. v. N.H.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault by choking; break and enter; theft under $5000 and breach of bail x2 (reduced to peace bond).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to continue prosecuting the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter stays. of proceedings on all criminal charges upon our client agreeing to a peace bond. No jail. 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