• Vancouver at night

Possession of Stolen Property

The Charge

Closely related to theft, possession of stolen property is an offence punishable by indictment, if the value of the property is over $5000, for up to two years imprisonment. Where the value is under $5000, the offence is punishable on summary conviction for up to two years jail, less a day. Section 354 of the Criminal Code sets out that it is an offence to possess property “knowing that the property was obtained or derived directly or indirectly by the commission of an offence.”  Thus, it is illegal to possess property that has been stolen or obtained fraudulently. It is an essential element of the offence that the Crown proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused knew that the property was derived from an offence and that the accused exercised control over the property.

The Investigation

Actual theft or fraud is not an essential element of this offence. Rather, the Crown need only prove that the property belonged to someone other than the accused and that the accused had knowledge that the property he possessed was, in fact, obtained through the commission of an offence. The investigating officer will certainly take statements from the property’s true owner and any witnesses who observed the accused in possession of the property. Knowledge that the property was obtained through an offence may be inferred, such as where the suspect is driving a vehicle with a broken door lock and a “punched” ignition. Additionally, police will also very likely seek to obtain an explanation from their suspect in an effort to get the suspect to admit that they knew the property was obtained illegally. This is where we as experienced 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. vs. A.O. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Possession of a loaded restricted handgun, without a permit.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client did anything more than briefly touch the gun while he a passenger in a vehicle.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge that our client's actions were minimal and that his youthful age and lack of record allowed him to be granted  a conditional discharge. No conviction. No jail.

R. vs. S.S. - Nelson Provincial Court

Charges: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (MDMA, Ketamine, Cocaine).
Issue: Given the nature of the search and seizure, the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, and given the recent changes to the mandatory minimum jail sentence for this offence, whether our client was eligible for a non-custodial sentence.
Result: Notwithstanding the large amount of drugs involved (approximately 2 kgs), Mr. Johnson was able to persuade the court to impose a conditional sentence of two years, less one day. No jail.

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

Charges: Assault.
Issue: Given the provocation that preceded the incident, what  the appropriate sentence would be.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the court to sentence our client to a period of probation of 12 months. No jail.

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

Charge: Indecent Act.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings upon our client completing an extensive course of counselling. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether she would be sentenced to jail.
Result: After steering our client through counselling and arranging her repayment of the misappropriated funds, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to not seek a. jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on our client's behalf, the court granted a suspended sentence and placed our client on probation for 18 months. No jail.

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

Charges: Sexual Assault; Uttering threats; assault, Breach of Release Order.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that there was no realistic chance of conviction on the sex assault charge and Crown proceeded only on the assault charge to which our client pleaded guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted our client a conditional discharge and Crown entered stays of proceeding on the remaining 3 counts. No jail, no criminal conviction.

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

Charge: Driving while prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with this charge which carries a mandatory one year driving prohibition upon conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with information that concluded our client was not at all responsible for the motor vehicle accident and persuaded Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without aa valid license. Our client was sentenced to a fine and a 3 month driving prohibition.

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

Charges: Mischief Over $5000; Assault Police Officer.
Issue: Whether the sentence ought to emphasize punishment or rehabilitation in this matter where our client was alleged to have caused over $100,000 in damage to his building.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide Crown counsel with materials confirming the rehabilitative steps our client had taken for his mental health. The cRown stayed the assault police officer charge and, after hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation. No jail.

R. vs. D.R. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the assault charge. Our client entered into a 12 month Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.Z. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to direct our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with this prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to provide Crown counsel with information that allowed him to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for Crown to proceed with the prosecution of this offence which carries a 12 month mandatory minimum driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a valid licence. Our client received a $500 fine and a 30 day driving prohibition.

R. vs. M.L. - Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client sexually interfered with his niece.
Result: After a 6 day trial, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade the trial judge that there was reasonable doubt as to the complainant's credibility and reliability. Not guilty. No jail. No criminal record.

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 property into the trial, the court will likely find insufficient evidence to convict.

Lack of Knowledge

Section 4(3) of the Criminal Code sets out that a person has something in “possession” when they:

  • Are in actual possession of it; or
  • Knowingly keep the thing in any place; and
  • Where one of two persons or more, with the knowledge and consent of the rest, has the thing in their custody, it shall be deemed to be in the custody of all of them.

Even in situations where police find an accused in actual possession of stolen property, absent any confession, the accused will be found not guilty if they can establish that they believed on reasonable grounds that they were in lawful possession of the property or that they were acting under the authority of a person whom they reasonably believed had lawful authority over the property.

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.