• 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 6 months in jail.

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. vs. J.F. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Possession for the purpose of Trafficking; Obstruct Police.
Issue: Whether the cocaine found by police was intended for sale or for personal use, and whether it was in the public interest to prosecute.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel which resulted in Crown agreeing to drop all charges upon our client successfully completing the Alternative Measures Program.

R. vs. A.O. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Possession of a loaded restricted handgun, without a permit.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client did anything more than briefly touch the gun while he a passenger in a vehicle.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge that our client's actions were minimal and that his youthful age and lack of record allowed him to be granted  a conditional discharge. No conviction. No jail.

R. vs. S.S. - Nelson Provincial Court

Charges: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (MDMA, Ketamine, Cocaine).
Issue: Given the nature of the search and seizure, the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, and given the recent changes to the mandatory minimum jail sentence for this offence, whether our client was eligible for a non-custodial sentence.
Result: Notwithstanding the large amount of drugs involved (approximately 2 kgs), Mr. Johnson was able to persuade the court to impose a conditional sentence of two years, less one day. No jail.

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

Charges: Assault.
Issue: Given the provocation that preceded the incident, what  the appropriate sentence would be.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the court to sentence our client to a period of probation of 12 months. No jail.

R. vs. B.K. - New Westminster Provincial Court

Charge: Indecent Act.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings upon our client completing an extensive course of counselling. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.L. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether she would be sentenced to jail.
Result: After steering our client through counselling and arranging her repayment of the misappropriated funds, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to not seek a. jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on our client's behalf, the court granted a suspended sentence and placed our client on probation for 18 months. No jail.

R. vs. A.A. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault; Uttering threats; assault, Breach of Release Order.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that there was no realistic chance of conviction on the sex assault charge and Crown proceeded only on the assault charge to which our client pleaded guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted our client a conditional discharge and Crown entered stays of proceeding on the remaining 3 counts. No jail, no criminal conviction.

R. vs. A.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Driving while prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with this charge which carries a mandatory one year driving prohibition upon conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with information that concluded our client was not at all responsible for the motor vehicle accident and persuaded Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without aa valid license. Our client was sentenced to a fine and a 3 month driving prohibition.

R. vs. L.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Mischief Over $5000; Assault Police Officer.
Issue: Whether the sentence ought to emphasize punishment or rehabilitation in this matter where our client was alleged to have caused over $100,000 in damage to his building.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide Crown counsel with materials confirming the rehabilitative steps our client had taken for his mental health. The cRown stayed the assault police officer charge and, after hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation. No jail.

R. vs. D.R. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the assault charge. Our client entered into a 12 month Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.Z. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to direct our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with this prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to provide Crown counsel with information that allowed him to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for Crown to proceed with the prosecution of this offence which carries a 12 month mandatory minimum driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a valid licence. Our client received a $500 fine and a 30 day driving prohibition.

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.