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. 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.

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

Charges: Uttering Threats (x3).
Issue: Whether or not our client was entitled to be sentenced to a conditional discharge rather than being convicted of this offence.
Result: Upon hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions on our client's behalf, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge rather than entering a conviction. No criminal record.

R. v. S.G. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Mischief. Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps that we guided our client through and advocating on her behalf that there was a reasonable self defence issue, whether there was a substantial likelihood of securing a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction. Ultimately Crown entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal conviction. No criminal record.

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

Charges: B&E; Assault; Distribute Intimate Images.
Issue: Whether the Crown could comply with a defence disclosure request and possibly face a Charter application to have charges stayed due to unreasonable delay.
Result: On the eve of the trial, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to allow our client to plead guilty to the least serious charge, assault by slapping. Crown nonetheless sought a conviction and probation, but after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. v. C.B.S. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: B&E; Assault; Distribute Intimate Images.
Issue: Whether the Crown could comply with a defence disclosure request and possibly face a Charter application to have charges stayed due to unreasonable delay.
Result: On the eve of the trial, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to allow our client to plead guilty to the least serious charge, assault by slapping. Crown nonetheless sought a conviction and probation, but after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. v. V.L. – Vancouver Provincial Youth 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 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. C.J.X. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges:  Assault with a Weapon.
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.E. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic) x2.
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 provide information to Crown counsel on our client's behalf and ultimately persuaded Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

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

Charges: B & E, Fraud over $5000, Motor vehicle theft; Identity theft, Driving while prohibited (x2).
Issue: Given our client’s personal circumstances and rehabilitative efforts, what would be the appropriate sentence.
Result:  Mr. Johnston was able to persuade Crown to make a joint submission for time-served, followed by a period of probation. The Crown directed stays of proceedings on several charges.  After hearing Mr. Johnston's submissions on our client's behalf, the sentencing judge noted that he would have ordinarily imposed a lengthy jail sentence for an accused in our client's position, but he accepted the joint submission. No further jail.

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

Charge: Possession of fentanyl and carfentanil for the purposes of trafficking.

Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnston provided to Crown counsel regarding our client’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged offence, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Johnston was able to persuade the Crown that there were issues with respect to the Crown's evidence such that it was unlikely our client would be convicted at trial, and that there was insufficient public interest in continuing to prosecute our client in any case. Given this informaton, the Crown directed a stay of proceedings on the charge. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Carrying a Concealed Weapon.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnston was able to provide to Crown counsel regarding the circumstances of the incident and our client's background, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnston persuaded Crown counsel that there was insufficient public interest, leading Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. 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