You are here: / / Choosing a Lawyer
  • Vancouver at sunset

Choosing a Lawyer

Ask Questions

A skilled defence lawyer can certainly have a huge impact on a criminal case. For people who have never been subject to charges, finding the right lawyer can be a very daunting experience. When choosing a lawyer, there are a number of inquiries to make and questions to ask. Ultimately, a person facing criminal charges will want to have trust in their lawyer. In order to gain that trust, the prospective lawyer should be able to satisfy their client that they have the necessary legal knowledge and courtroom skills to obtain a successful result.

Experience Matters

At Mines & Company, our lawyers have over 35 years combined experience in criminal law. Our practice involves 100 percent criminal and motor vehicle defence. Our lawyers both have past experience doing Crown prosecution work. We have the depth of experience to understand how criminal matters are prosecuted and defended. We have the drive and discipline to conduct thorough preparation and legal research in order to obtain successful results, either through negotiated resolution or in the courtroom at trial.

We offer a free, initial consultation so that we can gain your trust. We are confident that we will be able to answer your questions regarding our experience in defending the type of matter you are charged with. Our services include defence of all criminal and driving charges. Our record of success suggests that we, in fact, have had past success in defending charges like yours.

Recent Successes

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

Charges: Aggravated Assault; Breach of Undertaking; Assault police officer; Mischief to property.
Issue: Given the seriousness of the facial injuries to the complainant and the ensuing assault of the arresting police officer, whether a lengthy prison sentence was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through an extensive program of rehabilitation and, after gearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions in a contested hearing, the Court granted our client a conditional sentence of only 3 months, followed by 2 years probation. No jail.

R. vs. T.J. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Theft Under $5000.Issue: Whether there was substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier provided information and made representations to Crown counsel which ultimately led Crown to agree that there was no reasonable likelihood of a conviction. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.S. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Charges: Assault, mischief under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the investigating  RCMP officer to allow our client tp apologize to the complainant through Restorative Justice. Police did not seek to have any criminal charges approved. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to a jail for this $10,000 fraud from his employer.
Result: Notwithstanding that our client had a previous criminal conviction for a similar breach of trust offence, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to not seek a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a term of house arrest. No jail.

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

Charges: Assault by choking (x2); assault (x2); mischief under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the Court to enter a conviction against our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on only one count of common assault and to stay all remaining 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. T.F. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft Under $5,000, Obstructing a Peace Officer, Uttering Threats.

Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances.

Result: Mr. Johnston was able to direct our client to the appropriate community supports with respect to his rehabilitation. Given the positive change in our client's circumstances, the sentencing judge accepted Mr. Johnston's submission that a community based sentence was appropriate rather than the 60 jail sentence sought by the Crown. No jail.

R. vs. B.K. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to make a joint submission without the necessity of our client being required to complete counselling. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions the court granted our client the discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. v. R.L. – New Westminster Supreme Court

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.

R. vs. J.H. – Richmond Provincial Court

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.

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.
View All

Gaining Your Trust

During your initial consultation, you will meet with one of our lawyers who will:

  • Confirm the private and confidential nature of all communications between client and lawyer.
  • Gather information regarding the police investigation and any upcoming court dates.
  • Review all relevant court documents including police reports to Crown counsel, Informations to obtain search warrants, and certificates of analysis for drug, breath or blood samples.
  • Gather basic information about you; more specifically, your personal circumstances involving, family, education, and work history! Our goal is to be able to show your best side – the real person behind the allegations.
  • Provide you, in simple language, with an analysis of the law involved in the particular circumstances of your alleged offence. We will review what the Crown must prove in order to gain a conviction. For example, we will explain the “essential elements” of the charge(s) to you. We will explain how we believe the Crown will try to prove the charge. More specifically, we will review the important pieces of evidence – from human witnesses as well as any other evidence – such as video or photographic recordings and any potential evidence from doctors, scientists or mechanical reconstruction experts.
  • Provide you with our opinion of the best strategy (or strategies) to defend your case. Our goal is to obtain the best possible result.

Contact Us Now

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. The prospect of a criminal record or a 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.

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.

Connect