Our Successes
Property Offences
R. v. A.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court
/in All Successes, Property Offences/by Mike MinesR. v. M.A. Insurance Fraud Investigation
/in All Successes, Property Offences/by Mike MinesCharge: Insurance Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Given our client’s rehabilitation and repayment of the disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges were forwarded. No criminal record.
R. v. E.N. – North Vancouver Provincial Court
/in In the News - do not use this category, Property Offences/by Mike MinesCharge: Mischief Under $5000.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Gauthier provided to Crown counsel regarding our client’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged offence, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction resulting ultimately in Crown declining to approve a charge. No criminal record.
R. v. A.M. – Possession of Stolen Property Investigation – Squamish RCMP
/in All Successes, Property Offences/by Mike MinesCharge: Possession of Stolen Property (motor vehicles).
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence that our client was aware that the vehicles that he possessed had been obtained by the commission of crimes.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through the police investigation. Ultimately, based on insufficient evidence, police declined to forward charges against our client. No prosecution. No criminal record.
R. v. A.B. – Vancouver Provincial Court
/in All Successes, Property Offences, Theft & Fraud/by Mike MinesCharge: Break and Enter.
Issue: Given our client’s mental health issues, whether a conditional discharge was an appropriate sentence for this drug store break in.
Result: Mr. Gauthier provided Crown counsel with information about our client which persuaded Crown to make a joint submission for a conditional discharge. No jail. No criminal conviction.
R. v. M.G. – Nanaimo Provincial Court
/in All Successes, Assault & Threatening Charges, Property Offences/by Mike MinesCharges: Sexual Assault; Theft of Motor Vehicle x2; Break & Enter.
Issue: Whether or not it was in the public interest to proceed with the trial considering the reluctance oft the Crown’s central witness and rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel that ultimately led to a stay of proceedings on all counts. No criminal record.
R. vs. K.Q. – Richmond Provincial Court
/in All Successes, Property Offences/by Mike MinesCharge: Mischief to Property.
Issue: After Mr. Gauthier was able to facilitate making restitution on our client’s behalf, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Results: Crown counsel accepted Mr. Gauthier’s representations and concluded the matter by entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
R. vs. K.H. – Abbotsford Provincial Court
/in All Successes, Assault & Threatening Charges, Property Offences/by Mike MinesCharges: Breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing an indictable offence, wearing a mask for the purpose of committing an indictable offence, breach of release order
Issue: Whether it would be consistent with the principles of sentencing for our client to serve his sentence in the community.
Result: Mr. Johnston provided Crown counsel with information which, along with our client’s rehabilitative progress and good compliance with strict bail conditions, persuaded the Crown to seek a jail sentence of under two years for his role in a violent “home invasion”. After hearing Mr. Johnston’s submissions, the court agreed it would not be inconsistent with the principles of sentencing for our client to serve his sentence in the community instead of in custody. This was a significant result for our client as home invasion convictions typically result in lengthy jail sentences served in federal prison. No further time in custody.
R. vs. D.H.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court
/in All Successes, Assault & Threatening Charges, Property Offences/by Mike MinesCharges: Assault causing bodily harm; mischief to property under $5000.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction on the assault causing bodily harm charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the assault causing bodily harm charge. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court granted our client a conditional discharge and ordered restitution in relation to the smart phone that was damaged. No criminal conviction.
R. vs. B.A. – Vancouver Provincial Court
/in All Successes, Property Offences/by Mike MinesCharge: Robbery (reduced to theft under$5000).
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence that our client used force while committing theft to support a charge of robbery.
Result: Mr. Johnston drew Crown counsel’s attention to weaknesses in witness evidence, persuading Crown counsel to direct a stay of proceedings on the count of robbery and to proceed on the less serious charge of theft. After hearing Mr. Johnston’s submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge which was particularly significant as our client, a foreign national, would have been deemed inadmissible to Canada had he received a criminal conviction. No jail. No criminal record. Client able to remain in Canada.
R. vs. T.B. and M.L. – Surrey RCMP Investigation
/in All Successes, Property Offences, Theft & Fraud/by Mike MinesCharges: Possession of Stolen Property over $5000.
Issue: Whether police had sufficient grounds to recommend criminal charges against our clients.
Result: After Mr. Gauthier consulted with the investigator, RCMP decided to refer the case for civil forfeiture and to not pursue any criminal charges against our clients. No prosecution. No criminal record.
R. vs. M.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court
/in All Successes, Property Offences/by Mike MinesCharges: Residential Breaking and Entering x3; Possession of a prohibited weapon; driving offences.
Issues: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed on all outstanding charges and whether 30 months jail was an appropriate sentence.
Result: Mr. Johnston was able to provide information to Crown counsel about our client’s significant rehabilitation plan and persuaded Crown to drop 8 counts against our client. Mr. Johnston persuaded the court to impose a sentence of 12 months’ jail rather than the 30 months the Crown was seeking.
