R. vs. T.A. – West Shore RCMP investigation

Charge: Sexual Assault (reduced to common assault.)

Issue: Whether Crown counsel could prove that our client touched the complainant for a sexual purpose.

Result: Mr. Mines was able tp persuade Crown counsel that our client did not intend to touch the complainant in a sexual manner. The Crown agreed to proceed on the lesser charge of common assault and, after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction. No jail. No sex offender registry.

R. vs. J.S. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Assault (reduced to common assault.)

Issue: Whether Crown counsel could prove that our client touched the complainant for a sexual purpose.

Result: Mr. Mines was able tp persuade Crown counsel that our client did not intend to touch the complainant in a sexual manner. The Crown agreed to proceed on the lesser charge of common assault and, after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction. No jail. No sex offender registry.

R. vs. N.R. – Sechelt Provincial Court

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.

Issue: Whether it was in the pubic interest for our client to be sentenced to a conditional discharge for this offence which resulted in a serious facial cut to the complainant.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through a course of rehabilitation and, after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No conviction. No jail.

R. vs. S.K. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Assault with a Weapon, Breach of a Release Order.

Issue: Whether our client could be released on bail given Crown’s concerns for his willingness to attend court and potential to commit further offences.

Result: Mr. Johnston was able to persuade the Judge to release our client on the least onerous conditions.

R. vs. O.C. – Richmond RCMP Investigation

Charges: Theft (from Employer)) Investigation.

Issue: Whether the evidence was capable of reaching Crown counsel’s charge approval standard.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to the police investigator who, ultimately, elected not to request that any charges be approved. No criminal prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. C. E. – Courtenay Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prohibited driving charge which carries a mandatory minimum one year driving prohibition.

Result: Mr. Johnston was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed with the lesser offence of  driving without a valid licence. Our client was sentenced to a driving prohibition of only one month.

R. v. S.C. – Vancouver Police Investigation

Charge: Assault.

Issue: Whether there was credible evidence that would meet the charge approval standard.

Result: Mr. Gauthier provided information to the investigating officer that led the investigator to conclude that our client was not chargeable with a criminal offence. No charge approved. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Assault; Forcible Confinement (domestic).

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our through, whether it was in the public interest for our client to be sentenced to a criminal record.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to proceed only on the assault charge and, after hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R.M. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside prohibition.

Issue: Whether the police report established, on balance, that our client had refused to provide a breath sample during a roadside impaired driving investigation.

Result: The adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines’ submissions that our client’s evidence was more reliable than the evidence set out in the Police Report to the Superintendent. The 90 day driving prohibition was overturned and our client was ruled eligible to resume driving.

R. vs. E.W. – Fort Nelson Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a criminal conviction.

Result: Upon reviewing the allegations, Mr. Mines made representations to Crown counsel resulting in Crown agreeing that there was no reasonable prospect of convicting our client. No charges were approved. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Assault Peace Officer; Mischief Under $5000.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to  persuade Crown counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program and to enter a stay of proceedings on both charges upon our client completing the program. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.S. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Breach of Probation (from weapons charge).

Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution of our client who had failed to complete a course of court ordered counselling.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through an equivalent course of counselling. Upon completion, Crown counsel stayed the proceedings. No criminal record.