Charges: 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.
Charges: 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.
Charge: 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.
Charges: 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.
Charges: 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.
Charge: Theft of property of a value not exceeding $5,000
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnston identified weaknesses in the available video evidence which persuaded the Crown to direct a stay of proceedings on the charge. No jail. No criminal record.
Charges: Attempted Breaking and Entering; Breaking and Entering.
Issue: Whether our client could be released on bail given the Crown’s concerns about our client’s potential to commit further offences.
Result: Mr. Johnston worked with our client to develop a plan which ultimately persuaded Crown to consent to his release on reasonable conditions, even though our client was alleged to have committed these offences while already on bail with numerous other charges, including several counts of breaking and entering.
Charges: Uttering Threats (x2); Assault.
Issue: Given the position of the complainant, whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction or a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines’ representations, Crown counsel concluded the matter by sending a Caution Letter to our client. No charges were approved. No criminal record.
Charge: Assault (Domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the Crown to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier provided information to Crown Counsel that convinced them not to approve charges against the client. No criminal prosecution. No criminal record.
Charges: Mischief Under $5000.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Gauthier was able to provide to the RCMP investigator, whether it was in the public interest for police to forward charges to Crown counsel.
Result: Based on the significant collateral consequences that a criminal prosecution would bring to our client, Mr. Gauthier persuaded police to not forward any criminal charge whatsoever.
Charge: Mischief Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution in this case of our client causing damage to property.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel which resulted in Crown agreeing to stay the criminal charge upon our client completing the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.
Charge: Alleged breach of Conditional Sentence.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client’s actions were a serious breach of his community based sentence that warranted further jail time.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to present our client’s explanation for the breach and after considering our submissions, the court agreed to take no action and ordered taht our client serve the balance of his sentence back in the community.