R. vs. C. E. – Courtenay Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prohibited driving charge which carries a mandatory minimum one year driving prohibition.

Result: Mr. Johnston was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed with the lesser offence of  driving without a valid licence. Our client was sentenced to a driving prohibition of only one month.

R.M. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside prohibition.

Issue: Whether the police report established, on balance, that our client had refused to provide a breath sample during a roadside impaired driving investigation.

Result: The adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines’ submissions that our client’s evidence was more reliable than the evidence set out in the Police Report to the Superintendent. The 90 day driving prohibition was overturned and our client was ruled eligible to resume driving.

R. vs. P.N. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Dangerous Driving Causing Death.

Issue: Whether Crown could prove that our client had the necessary intent to prove that she was guilty of the criminal charge.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed under the Motor Vehicle Act rather than the Criminal Code. After hearing Mr. Mines’  submissions, the Court sentenced our client to 60 days to be served on weekends. The Crown had originally sought a sentence in the range of 2 years.

R. vs. S.L. – ICBC Investigation

Charges: Failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

Issue: Whether our client was obligated to provide a possibly incriminating  statement to the adjuster that could have led to criminal charges and a loss of  insurance coverage.

Result:  Mr. Mines was able to provide the required information to ICBC our client’s behalf. No charges were  recommended. No loss of insurance coverage.

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

Charge: Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm.

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a criminal conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.

Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed under the Motor Vehicle Act rather than the Criminal Code. After gearing Mr. Johnson’s submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a $100 fine and a 3 year driving prohibition. No criminal record. No jail.

R. vs. N.A. – Vancouver Traffic Court

Charges: Speeding (MVA).

Issue: Whether the police officer could prove that our client was speeding, and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the trial.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to the police investigator that led to the officer withdrawing the violation ticket prior to the trial. The lack of this conviction prevented our client from a significant driving prohibition.

R. vs. R.P. – West Vancouver Police investigation.

Charge: Failing to remain at the scene of a motor vehicle accident.

Issue: Whether police would be able to prove that our client was the driver of the vehicle that was abandoned after the accident.

Result: Mr Johnson was able to guide our client through the investigation and was able to persuade police to issue our client an MVA ticket, payable by a fine, to our client as the vehicle owner. No criminal charges approved. No driving prohibition.

R. vs. N.V. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Excessive speeding (MVA).

Issue: Whether our client would have his trial within a reasonable time.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the RCMP officer that there was unreasonable delay in the circumstances. The officer withdrew the ticket. No penalty points and no driving prohibition.

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

Charge: Driving while prohibited.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prohibited driving charge.

Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without possessing a valid driver’s licence. Rather than the 12 month minimum mandatory driving prohibition, our client received a 4 month prohibition.

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

Charge: Driving while prohibited.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with this charge which carries a mandatory one year driving prohibition upon conviction.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with information that concluded our client was not at all responsible for the motor vehicle accident and persuaded Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without aa valid license. Our client was sentenced to a fine and a 3 month driving prohibition.

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

Charges: Driving While Prohibited.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for Crown to proceed with the prosecution of this offence which carries a 12 month mandatory minimum driving prohibition.

Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a valid licence. Our client received a $500 fine and a 30 day driving prohibition.

R. v. C.C. – Surrey provincial Court

Charges: Impaired Driving, Dangerous Driving Causing Death.

Issues: Whether police breached our client’s Charter rights during the investigation; whether the court would accept the Crown’s sentencing submission.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that police breached our client’s right against an unlawful seizure of his breath samples. This resulted in the Crown’s inability to prove the Impaired Driving / Over .08 offences.  The Crown had originally been seeking up to 4.5 years jail, but sought a one year jail sentence on the Dangerous Driving Causing Death charge. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court found that 5 months was the appropriate sentence.