Charges: Sexual assault.
Issue: Whether or not the acts complained of were consensual or not, and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines provided further information to th investigator on our client’s behalf that ultimately led to police declining to recommend any criminal charges. No charge was approved. No criminal record.
Charges: Extortion, Possessing and distributing child pornography, Criminal harassment; Obstructing justice.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for our client to be detained in custody pending his trail.
Result: After considering Mr. Gauthier’s submissions, the Supreme Court Justice agreed to release our client on surety bail with a cash deposit.
Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to continue with the prosecution in this retrial after a deadlocked jury decision.
Result: upon considering all of Mr. Mines’ representations, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.
Charges: Voyeurism; Criminal harassment.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove that our client actually recorded and distributed images without consent of the complainant.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed only on the criminal harassment charge. After hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions, the trial judge granted our client a conditional sentence order with a curfew for two months. No jail.
Charges: Criminal harassment; Distributing intimate images without consent.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove the circumstantial evidence they sought to rely on and whether jail was the appropriate sentence.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to convince Crown counsel to not rely on much of the aggravating evidence and, on our client’s guilty plea to not seek a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions, the Court granted our client a suspended sentence with probation. No jail.
Charge: Sexual Assault (reduced to common assault.)
Issue: Whether Crown counsel could prove that our client touched the complainant for a sexual purpose.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that our client did not intend to touch the complainant in a sexual manner. The Crown agreed to proceed on the lesser charge of common assault and, after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction. No jail. No sex offender registry.
Charge: Possession of child pornography.
Issue: Whether police would be able to prove that our client was the only person that had access to the IP address on which the unlawful material was downloaded.
Result: Mr. Mines provided information to the police investigator that led the investigator to close the file with no charges recommended against our client. No jail. No criminal record.
Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: The credibility and reliability of the complainant and our client who both testified in this historic sexual assault case.
Result: After 9 hours of deliberations, the jury was deadlocked and could not reach an unanimous decision. No conviction. The trial judge remitted the matter back to court to set a new trial.
Charges: Assault with a weapon; assault causing bodily harm.
Issue: Given elements of provocation, a potential defence of self-defence, and our client’s background as a vulnerable woman, whether it was in the public interest for Crown to continue the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings upon our client succesfully completing the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.
Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether the complainant was a credible and reliable witness.
Result: After the complainant was cross-examined by Mr. Johnson for a full day, the Crown elected to enter a stay of proceedings bringing the trial to an end. No jail. No criminal conviction.
Charges: Sexual Assault; Overcome Resistance by Choking.
Issue: Given the additional information that Mr. Johnson was able to provide to police, whether it was appropriate to proceed to the trial on the approved charges.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to re-elect to proceed summarily, to drop the charge of choking and, after hearing Mr. Johnson’s submissions on our client’s behalf, the trial judge sentenced our client to a conditional discharge with probation. Our client avoided a significant jail sentence.
Charges: Indecent Assault.
Issue: Given the information and materials Mr. Johnson provided to the Crown and the Court on our client’s behalf, whether a jail sentence was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown not to seek jail and, after hearing Mr. Johnson’s submissions, the court sentenced our client to 12 months probation. No jail.