• Vancouver at night

Assault with a Weapon

The Charge

Under the s. 2 definition of the Criminal Code, a weapon is “anything used, designed to be used, or intended for use in causing death or injury, or for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person.” Under s. 267, everyone who, in committing an assault, carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon (or imitation) is guilty of an indictable offence or a summary offence. The maximum sentences are, respectively, 10 years in jail or two years jail, less day. There is no mandatory minimum sentence for Assault with a Weapon. Non-custodial sentences are available.

To obtain a conviction for Assault with a Weapon, the Crown must first prove that there was an assault. This is to say that the Crown must prove that the accused applied force to the complainant without the complainant’s consent. Further, the Crown must prove that the accused was not acting in self-defence. In addition, the Crown must prove that the accused, in committing the assault, used a weapon. The Crown need not prove that any injury actually occurred.

It is a misconception that a “weapon” is limited to instruments such as firearms or knives. Objects such as chairs, rocks, potted plants, cars and even dogs have been held to be weapons.

The Investigation

Assault with a Weapon investigations unfold according to the nature of how and when the police receive the complaint. For example, police may be called to a bar or nightclub when a concerned patron or server sees a fight break out. Police will attend the scene and make an arrest. In other cases, it may take hours, days or weeks for police to be notified. In these situations, police will contact the suspect by attending at their house or workplace. They may contact the suspect by phone. As investigators, the police will want to hear the suspect’s side of the story. As experienced lawyers, this is where we can help our clients understand their right to silence as guaranteed by the Charter.

When we are contacted by a suspect prior to their arrest, we can be of significant assistance. We will contact police to determine who the investigating officer is. We will then contact this officer to determine the nature of the investigation. Because of the laws concerning solicitor/client privilege, we can act as a “buffer” between police and them. We are able to speak on your behalf without creating any evidence that could be used to incriminate you. We will strive to persuade police to not take you into custody at all or, alternatively, to release you as quickly as possible, with the least onerous conditions that are appropriate.

Recent Successes

R. vs. B.J. – Downtown Community Court

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.

R. vs. A.M. = Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
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 provided Crown counsel with information about our client’s circumstances, including his lack of prior criminal offending, his efforts at rehabilitation, and the fact that a conviction for either offence could result in the client’s deportation, an outcome which Mr. Johnston argued would be disproportionate to the seriousness of alleged offences. At the same time, Mr. Johnston pointed out weaknesses in the evidence against our client. The Crown directed stays of proceedings on both charges. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.V. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Uttering Threats x3; Criminal Harassment; Breach of Release Order (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution of these matters.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that it was more appropriate to deal with these matters in the context of Family Court. Ultimately Crown did not approve the uttering threats and criminal harassment charges and Mr. Gauthier persuaded Crown that there was no public interest in prosecuting the breach charge and to enter a stay of proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.L. – Terrace RCMP Investigation

Charges: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines presented additional information to Crown counsel which resulted in Crown  declining to approve any charge.  No criminal record.

R. vs. O.P. – Victoria Provincial Court

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.

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

Charges: Indecent Act; Assault With a Weapon; Possessing of a Weapon for Dangerous Purpose (x2); Robbery; Uttering Threats; 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 prosecution of all counts; whether a jail sentence was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Johnston identified weaknesses in the evidence which persuaded the Crown there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on the Indecent Act charge.  Mr. Johnston persuaded Crown counsel  to resolve the case on three of the remaining counts and to stay all remaining charges. After hearing Mr. Johnston's submissions regarding our client's personal circumstances and his significant rehabilitation efforts,  the Court agreed to release our client from custody and to place him on a probation order with conditions supporting his rehabilitation. No further jail time.

R. vs. M.G. – RCMP Investigation

Charges: Possession for the purpose of trafficking.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood that Crown could establish that our client was a willing participant in the alleged drug trafficking scheme.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information and persuade police to not seek any criminal charges against our client. No No charges were approved. Our client's vehicle was retuned. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.K. – New Westminster Provincial Court

Charges: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide additional information and persuaded Crown counsel stay the charge upon our client completing the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.  

R. vs. K.L. – Vancouver Police Investigation

Charge: Assault Peace Officer.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction in this case which involved an alleged assault of a police officer.
Result: Mr. Gauthier provided information and a video to Crown counsel which showed that the police made an unlawful arrest thereby giving our client lawful grounds to defend himself. Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to not approve any charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.D. – Vernon Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a weapon; Mischief to property.
Issues: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution in this case where our client allegedly intentionally collided with the complainant's vehicle.
Result: Mr. Gauthier provided additional information to Crown counsel and was able to persuade Crown to resolve this matter with a s.810 Recognizance (Peace Bond).    

R. vs. R.V. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Given our client's circumstances and the circumstances in which he drove, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines presented our client's background information to Crown and was able to persuade Crown to procceed on the lesser charge of Driving without a valid drivers' licence. Rather than a 12 month minimum driving prohibition, our client was sentenced to a nighttime driving prohibition from 10 pm to 6 am.

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

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.

The Defence

Consent

As in a common assault charge, the Crown must prove that the accused applied force directly or indirectly to another person without their consent. This includes threatening, by act or gesture, to apply such force to another person. Assault with a Weapon, therefore, includes all acts where force is actually applied (such as striking someone with an object, or stabbing them) to acts where force is threatened (such as raising a gun, knife or other object toward the person).

Self Defence

The law allows that if a person reasonably believes that force is being used (or threatened to be used) against them, they are allowed to use force to defend themselves, or another person, so long as the force they use is reasonable. In determining whether the force used was reasonable, the court will consider various circumstances, including:

  • The nature of the force or threat;
  • The extent to which there was an alternative to using force;
  • The size, gender and physical capabilities of the parties; and
  • The history and relationship of the parties.

Self-defence is available, therefore, to an assault with a weapon charge to the extent that the accused person, objectively, had to defend themselves (or another person). The force used must not be excessive. Clearly, a person is not permitted to defend themselves from a punch by pulling out a gun and killing the attacker. However, the law holds that a person being attacked is allowed to use “reasonable force,” and, in the heat of the moment of being attacked, is not required to fully “measure” the amount of force that they use in self-defence.

As lawyers with more than 25 years of experience defending all types of assault cases, we have the experience and skills to assess your case before it gets to trial. In appropriate cases, we are able to persuade Crown counsel to not proceed with the prosecution, to proceed on a lesser charge, or to persuade the judge to grant a discharge rather than convict our client. In cases that do proceed to trial, we are well-versed in the various defences that are available to Assault with a Weapon charges.

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.