R. vs. A.W. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson persuaded Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. W.C. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Possession of Prohibited Weapon; Smuggling.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, the Crown would seek a jail sentence.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed summarily and to jointly seek a fine rather than a jail sentence.

R. vs. B.L. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Criminal Harrassment.
Issue: Whether, given the rehabilitative steps our client took on his own initiative, there was a public interest in prosecuting the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel into proceeding by way of a “Peace Bond” and to stay the criminal charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.G. – Vancouver Police Investigation

Charge: Sex Assault.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to steer our client through the investigation which ended with police recommending no chargesl. No criminal record.

R. vs. N.D. – Vancouver Supreme Court

Charge: Sexual Assault; Break and Entering.
Issue: Whether, given the loss of crucial evidence by police, our client could receive a fair trial.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel that our client’s right to a fair trial was breached. Crown entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.K. – Surrey RCMP Investigation

Charge: Possession of Child Pornography.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the police investigation which ended with police concluding that our client did not knowingly possess any illegal images. No charges recommended. No criminal record. All seized property was returned to our client.

R.M. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the investgating officer could prove that our client was a “driver” within the Motor Vehicle Act, and whether our client refused a lawful breath demand.
Result: Driving prohibition revoked. After conidering Mr. Mines’ submissions, the adjudicator concluded that our client was not a “driver” within the MVA definition. All fees refunded to our client. Our client was permitted to resume driving. No conviction. No record.

 

R. vs. A.W. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was any public interest in proceeding with the charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program without approving any criminal charge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. G.H. – Ridge Meadows RCMP Investigation

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction with respect to this historical sex assault complaint.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the police investigation which concluded with police not recommending any charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to prosecute.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown that our client had a viable explanation for not paying his bill. Crown entered a stay of proceedings and cancelled the arrest warrant. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.D. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Possession of a controlled substance (cocaine).
Issue: Whether our client would be convicted of the charge.
Result: Contrary to Crown Counsel’s sentencing position, after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court granted our client an Absolute Discharge. No permanent criminal record.

R. vs. B.S. and S.T. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Possession of a Controlled Substance (cocaine).
Issue: Whether our clients would have convictions registered against them.
Result: Contrary to Crown counsel’s sentencing position, the court, after considering Mr. Mines’ submissions, granted both of our clients Absolute Discharges. No permanent record.