R. vs. D.A. – Kelowna Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Obstruct Police Officer.

Issue: Despite the very serious nature of the offence (threatening to cause serious harm at knifepoint) whether a jail sentence was the appropriate sentence.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to direct our client through an intensive course of rehabilitation, and was ultimately able to persuade Crown counsel and the Court to grant our client a conditional sentece to be served in the community in a residential tratment facility. No jail.

R. vs. R.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Assault.

Issue: Given the extensive rehabilitation effort of our client, whether it was appropriate for the court to grant our client a conditional discharge.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the Court that provocation was a significant factor and that, despite kicking the complainant, the appropriate sentence was a discharge on condition of “no contact” for 12 months. No criminal conviction.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Criminal Harassment (reduced to Peace Bond).

Issue: Given our client’s significant self-rehabilitation, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to end the criminal prosecution and to resolve the matter with a s. 810 Recognizance (“Peace Bond”). No criminal record.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in  the public interest continue with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed with a Peace Bond rather than the criminal assault charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.V. – Duncan Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Assault.

Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnston was able to provide to Crown counsel about our client’s circumstances and the significant rehabilitation steps we were able to guide him through, whether it remained in the public interest to continue with the prosecution.

Result: Crown counsel accepted Mr. Johnston’s representations and concluded the matter by entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.J. – Chilliwack Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether a criminal prosecution was appropriate.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed pursuant to a s. 810 Peace Bond, and to enter a stay of proceedings on the criminal charge. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court placed our client on the Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.K. – Surrey Provincial Court

/in , , /by

Charges: Assault; assault with a weapon; breach of undertaking (x2); attempting to take weapon from police.

Issue: Whether our client’s personal circumstances and positive rehabilitative steps made him a good candidate for a conditional discharge.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed only on the common assault charge and to stay proceedings on the remaining four criminal charges. After hearing Mr. Mines’submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation for 12 months. No criminal conviction.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm (reduced to assault).

Issue: Whether the caselaw supported our client receiving a conditional discharge for this domestic assault case in which the complainant sustained a significant injury.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide Crown counsel with information about our client and a number of case authorities which resulted in Crown agreeing to proceed on assault simpliciter  and to make a joint recommendation for a conditional discharge, which was accepted by the court.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Assault causing bodily harm.

Issue: Given the parallel civil claim and the issue of  self defence, whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information about our client’s circumstances and the circumstances of the incident which caused Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. P.G. – Richmond Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Assault; Assault by Choking.

Issue: Whether our client was acting in self defence and whether he used excessive force.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to guide our client through a course of self rehabilitation and to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser charge of simple assault. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge and declined to make the restitution order sought by the complainant. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. A.S. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Assault (domestic) Reduced to Peace Bond.

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to continue with the criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through a course of rehabilitation and persuaded Crown to stay the assault charge and to allow our client to enter into a Peace Bond.

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

/in , /by

Charges: Assault; Uttering Threats.

Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence for criminal charges to be approved.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with additional information and persuaded Crown that it was not in the public interest to proceed with any criminal charges.