R. vs. X.Z. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Committing an indecent act (reduced to causing a disturbance).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution on the indecent act charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of causing a disturbance, and after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court granted our client an absolute discharge. No criminal record.

R. vs. F.M. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether a jail sentence was appropriate in this case.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to steer our client through an appropriate course of rehabilitation and was then able to persuade the Court to grant our client an 18 month conditional sentence. No jail.

R. vs. T.O. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstance, it was appropriate for the Crown to continue with a sexual assault prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to steer our client through an appropriate course of rehabilitation and was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of simple assault. After hearing Mr. Johnson’s submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge. No jail.

R. vs. E.N. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited (MVA).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge as laid, which carries a mandatory 12 month driving prohibition upon conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persude Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of Driving without a Valid Licence. Our client recived a $200 fine and a 2 month driving prohibition.

R. vs. A.C. – Surrey RCMP Investigation

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to point to deficiencies in the evidence. He persuaded Crown counsel to not approve any charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.P. – Whistler RCMP Investigation

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the investigation and persuaded Crown counsel to not proceed with the prosecution. No charge approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: s.810 Peace Bond Application.
Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the complainant reasonably had fear of our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to point to significant deficiencies in the evidence that allegedly pointed to our client as the party that caused damage to the complainant’s property. He persuaded Crown counsel to withdraw its application. Our client was not subject to any further court imposed conditions.

R. vs. M.A. – Kamloops Provincial Court

Charge: Mischief to Property.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for Crown counsel to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings upon our client making restitution for the damage he caused, writing a letter of apology and completing community service work. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.W. – White Rock RCMP Investigation

Charge: Mischief to Property (under $5000).
Issue: Whether there was evidence that would support a  criminal charge and whether it was in the public interest to proceed.
Result: Mr. Mines provided information to police, which the investigator considered in concluding that he would not be recommending any charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.C. – North Vancouver RCMP Investigation

Charge: Sexual interference; Invitation to sexual touching.
Issue: Whether there was credible evidence on which to proceed with charges in this historic allegation of sexual touching.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide exculpatory information to police on our client’s behalf. Ultimately, police concluded their investigation with no criminal charges being recommended.

R. vs. S.S. – Nelson Provincial Court

Charge: Possession for the purpose of trafficking.
Issue: Whether, given the large quantity of cocaine and other drugs found upon execution of the search warrant, whether it was appropriate for the court to release our client on bail.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions on our client’s behalf, the Court agreed to release our client on surety bail with strict conditions.