• False Creek at night

Our Successes

Sexual Offences

R. vs. E.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

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.

R. vs. J.S. – Surrey Provincial Court

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.

R. vs. R.N. – RCMP Investigation

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.

R. vs. R. L. – New Westminster Supreme Court (jury).

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.

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

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.

R. vs. B.L. – New Westminster Supreme Court (jury).

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.

R. vs. A.A. – Richmond Provincial Court

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.

R. vs. A.J. – Cranbrook Provincial Youth Court

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.

R. vs. E.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Assault.

Issue: Given the circumstances of the incident and the rehabilitative steps we were able to steer our client through, whether it was in the public interest for Crown to proceed with the prosecution.

Result: Upon providing information including counselling records to Crown counsel, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to not approve any criminal charges. No jail; criminal record.

R. vs. V.R. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual assault(x2); unlawful confinement; assault with a weapon; breach of undertaking; possession of child pornography.

Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that there was no consent with respect to the sexual assault charges and whether a jail sentence was appropriate given our youthful client’s rehabilitation that we were able to steer him through.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to not proceed on the sexual offences and, after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court granted our client a 3 month conditional sentence with a curfew and probation. No jail.

R. vs. J.L. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual assault; Unlawful Confinement; Assault by Choking.

Issue: Given the impact of the additional evidence that Mr. Johnson provided to Crown counsel, whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.

Result: Crown counsel agreed that the new evidence significantly undermined the strength of the case.  Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings, bringing the prosecution to an end. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.L. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Indecent Act; Mischief (reduced to Peace Bond).

Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client intended to commit a criminal offence.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the the criminal charges upon our client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.