Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Johnson provided Crown counsel with affidavit evidence from an independent witness and was able to persuade Crown to end the prosecution by entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
Charge: Sex Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in this 5 day trial that involved numerous issues including the admissibility of hearsay statements, the reliability of witness statements, and whether there was an innocent explanation for the presence of our client’s DNA on the clothing of the complainant.
Result: Upon considering Mr. Mines’ submissions, the trial judge found our client not guilty and dismissed both charges. Our client avoided a mandatory minimum one year jail sentence. No criminal record.
Charge: Sex Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the investigation and provided information to Crown counsel which contributed to Crown deciding to not approve any criminal charge in this matter.
Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a discharge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to assemble information about our client and provide submissions to the Court which persuaded the judge to grant our client an absolute discharge. No record of conviction.
Charge: Possession of Cocaine.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program. Upon completion, Crown withdrew the charge. No criminal record.
Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide our client’s relevant medical records to Crown which, ultimately, led to Crown declining to approve any charge against our client. No criminal record.
Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge as laid.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a license. Rather than being sentenced to the mandatory minimum 12 month driving prohibition, our client received a $250 fine. No driving prohibition.
Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps that our client had taken on his own initiative, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that there was no longer a need to prosecute our client. Crown directed a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.
Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown that there was a lack of evidence that would lead to a conviction resulting in Crown deciding to not approve any charge. No criminal record.
Charge: Hit and Run.
Issue: Whether our client would be charged with a Criminal Code offence and whether ICBC would breach his insurance policy as a result of his actions.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade police to issue our client a Motor Vehicle Act violation ticket rather than proceed with criminal charges. Mr. Mines was then able to steer our client through an ICBC investigation which concluded without ICBC finding him in breach of his insurance policy, saving him in the range of $10,000.
Charge: Speeding; Driving without Reasonable Consideration.
Issue: Whether our client had a lawful excuse for driving in the manner he did.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to present medical evidence to the police officer who agreed to drop the Driving without Reasonable Consideration charge and to proceed against our client as the registered owner rather than the driver. Our client was sentenced to a fine but received no driving demerit points rather than the 9 points he was originally facing.
Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police officer had reasonable grounds to demand the breath sample that our client refused to provide.
Result: The adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines’ submissions that the officer did not have objectively reasonable grounds to make the demand and, accordingly, found that our client was entitled to refuse providing the breath sample. The 90 day driving prohibition and 30 day vehicle impoundment were revoked and our client was permitted to resume driving.
