R. vs. D.A. – Kelowna Provincial Court
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
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
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. P.A.N. – West Vancouver Police Investigation
Charge: Fraud (from employer).
Issue: Given our client’s cooperation with authorities and willingness to repay the alleged misappropriated funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the police investigator to refer the file to Restorative Justice rather than arresting our client and recommending a criminal prosecution. No charge was approved. No criminal record.
R. vs. M.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court
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. K.Q. – Richmond Provincial Court
Charge: Mischief to Property.
Issue: After Mr. Gauthier was able to facilitate making restitution on our client’s behalf, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Results: Crown counsel accepted Mr. Gauthier’s representations and concluded the matter by entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
R. vs. A.V. – Duncan Provincial Court
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
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. v. Q.C. – Insurance Fraud Investigation
Charge: Insurance fraud over $5000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client’s rehabilitation and repayment of disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the Insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges were forwarded. No criminal record.
R. vs. D.K. – Surrey Provincial Court
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. A.S. – North Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Fraud Over $5,000 (x4); Theft Over $5,000 (x4).
Issue: Given that full restitution was made and that our client had taken significant steps toward self-rehabilitation, whether jail was the appropriate sentence for this $240,000 employee fraud.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to facilitate the restitution payment and provided medical information to Crown counsel on our client’s behalf. Ultimately Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to jointly recommend a non-custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, our client was granted a 2 year less a day conditional senntence. No jail.
R. vs. R.B. – Vancouver Provincial Court
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.
