You are here: / / Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose
  • Vancouver at night

Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose

The Charge

Section 2 of the Criminal Code defines a weapon as “anything used, designed to be used or intended for use in causing death or injury to any person” or “for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person.” Weapons include, therefore, obvious things such as firearms and knives. Depending on the context in which they are possessed, “weapons” might also include such things as a rock, a baseball bat, or even a potted plant or a pencil.

Under s. 88 of the Code, it is unlawful to carry or possess a weapon (or imitation) for a purpose that is dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence. The crucial element of this offence is the purpose for which the accused person has the weapon. The Crown must prove that the accused’s purpose for possessing the weapon was, in fact, for a dangerous purpose. The court must examine all of the surrounding circumstances in order to infer whether or not the accused possessed the weapon for a purpose that is dangerous to the public peace.

Everyone who commits the offence possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose is guilty of an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years in jail, or a summary offence with a maximum sentence of 2 years less a day.

The Investigation

Actual use of a weapon is not an essential element of this offence. Rather, the Crown need only prove that the weapon was possessed for the purpose of endangering the public. The purpose for which the accused had the weapon must, therefore, be determined by police. The investigating officer will certainly take statements from the complainant(s) and any witnesses. Police will also very likely seek to obtain an explanation from their suspect. They will seek to verify the complaint by getting the suspect to admit they possessed the item alleged to be a “weapon” and they will seek to get the suspect to admit that their purpose was to endanger someone. This is where we as experienced criminal 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. v. M.F. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Health insurance fraud investigation.
Issue: Given our client's civil settlement of the alleged false insurance claims. whether there was any public interest in proceeding with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to negotiate an appropriate civil settlement and repayment to the employer. No criminal prosecution.

R. v. V.H. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether or not it was contrary to the public interest for our client to be sentenced to a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through a course of rehabilitation. The Court granted our client the discharge and placed her on probation. No record of conviction.

R. v. J.M. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

Charge: Health insurance fraud investigation.
Issue: Given our client's civil settlement of the alleged false insurance claims. whether there was any public interest in proceeding with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate an appropriate civil settlement and repayment to the employer. No criminal prosecution.

R. v. K.D. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Mischief Under $5000 (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given our client's background and rehabilitative efforts, whether it was in the oublic interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persude the criminal charge upon our client entering into a 12 month peace bond. No criminal record.

R. v. N.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Theft under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Given our client's background and remorse, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to admit our client into the Alternative Measures program. Upon completion, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No criminal conviction.

R. v. N.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft Under $5,000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Given our client's background, was it in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program and, upon our client's completion of the program, Crown enteres a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. C.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Fraud (in the range of $50,000).
Issue: Based on information Mr. Gauthier was able to provide to the civil investigators about our client's personal circumstances, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to settle the matter civilly on our client's behalf. No charges were recommended. No criminal record.

R. v. B.X. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether the complainant was a credible and reliable witness.
Result:  Upon hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on our client's behalf at the conclusion of the trial, the Court found our client not guilty on both counts. Acquittal. No criminal record.

R. v. A.L. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the police investigation by providing information to police on our client's behalf. Ultimately, Crown counsel decided to not approve any criminal charge. No jail; no criminal record.

R. v. A.Z. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given information we provided to Crown counsel regarding our client's background, the circumstances of the incident and the complainant's wishes, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings, bringing the case to an end.  No criminal record.

R. v. I.R. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual assault, assault x 2
Issues: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances, and whether our client should be excused from having to register as a sex offender.
Result: Upon hearing Mr. Johnston’s submissions regarding our client’s personal circumstances, rehabilitative progress, and the unusual nature of the offences, the Court imposed a sentence of probation, rather than the conditional sentence the Crown had sought. For the same reasons, the Court also agreed to excuse our client from the usual requirement of having to register as a sex offender.

R. v. R.A.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Robbery, uttering threats, possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose
Issues: Whether there was a reasonable chance our client would be convicted at trial, and whether there was public interest in continuing to prosecute our client.
Result: Given Mr. Johnston’s representations on behalf of our client and the unusual circumstances of the offence, the Crown agreed there would be difficulty establishing our client was the one who committed the alleged offences, and that it was not in the public interest to continue prosecuting our client. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.  
View All

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

Lack of Possession

In many situations, people are arrested on weapons charges with the weapon not directly in their possession. For example, a knife might be in the glovebox or trunk of the car. It might be that the accused is not driving their own car but, rather, the car of a friend or relative. In these situations, absent any incriminating confession, it may be possible to argue that the accused had no knowledge of the weapon or that they had no control over it. As experienced defence lawyers, we understand the high standard that the law requires when prosecuting weapons offences. We are dedicated to protecting our client’s rights.

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.

Connect