• Vancouver at night

Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose

The Charge

Section 2 of the Criminal Code defines a weapon as “anything used, designed to be used or intended for use in causing death or injury to any person” or “for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person.” Weapons include, therefore, obvious things such as firearms and knives. Depending on the context in which they are possessed, “weapons” might also include such things as a rock, a baseball bat, or even a potted plant or a pencil.

Under s. 88 of the Code, it is unlawful to carry or possess a weapon (or imitation) for a purpose that is dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence. The crucial element of this offence is the purpose for which the accused person has the weapon. The Crown must prove that the accused’s purpose for possessing the weapon was, in fact, for a dangerous purpose. The court must examine all of the surrounding circumstances in order to infer whether or not the accused possessed the weapon for a purpose that is dangerous to the public peace.

Everyone who commits the offence possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose is guilty of an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years in jail, or a summary offence with a maximum sentence of 6 months in jail.

The Investigation

Actual use of a weapon is not an essential element of this offence. Rather, the Crown need only prove that the weapon was possessed for the purpose of endangering the public. The purpose for which the accused had the weapon must, therefore, be determined by police. The investigating officer will certainly take statements from the complainant(s) and any witnesses. Police will also very likely seek to obtain an explanation from their suspect. They will seek to verify the complaint by getting the suspect to admit they possessed the item alleged to be a “weapon” and they will seek to get the suspect to admit that their purpose was to endanger someone. This is where we as experienced criminal defence lawyers, can help by providing advice to our clients regarding their rights under the Charter, including their right to remain silent.

Recent Successes

R. v. D.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic). Reduced to Peace Bond.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we guided our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charges  upon our client entering into a Peace Bond with a 12 month "no contact" order. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Assault (domestic). Reduced to Peace Bond.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we guided our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charges  upon our client entering into a Peace Bond with a 12 month "no contact" order. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there remained a public interest in continuing with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information about our client to Crown counsel which ultimately led to Crown entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.A. – Non Academic Misconduct Investigation

Charges: Sexual harassment.
Issue: Whether our client's behaviour amounted to "sexual harassment" as defined by the university's conduct policy.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to prepare our client for the University's hearing and, upon hearing all of the evidence, the University ruled that our client had not engaged in sexual harassment or any behaviour that contravened the institution's policies.

R. vs. Y.Z. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Attempted Murder (reduced to assault with a weapon). Issue: Given the circumstances of the event and given our client's mental health condition, whether our client truly had the intention to kill the complainant. Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide medical/psychological information to Crown counsel and, ultimately, was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of assault with a weapon and to make a joint recommendation to the court for a conditional discharge, rather than the lengthy jail sentence they were originally seeking.  After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court granted our client the discharge. No criminal conviction. No jail.

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

Charges: Assault x2 (Reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the potential for self-defence in this case, whether it was appropriate for the criminal prosecution to continue.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel which resulted in Crown's decision to proceed with a Peace Bond rather than the criminal charges. No criminal record.

R. v. G.K. – Fort St. John Provincial Court

Charge: Theft/ Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether Crown could prove the alleged $300,000 offence and, given the rehabilitative steps that we were able to guide our client through, whether a jail sentence was necessary.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that they could only prove that our client was responsible for a $74,000 theft. Further, despite the breach of trust, in this case, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to seek a conditional sentence, rather than jail. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the court sentenced our client to a 2 year conditional sentence. No jail.

R. vs. C.Y. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a weapon ( 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 proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client to resolve this matter with a s. 810 Recognizance (Peace Bond) for a period of 12 months. Stay of proceedings on the criminal charge. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Theft and Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether the pre-charge delay of 3.5 years would reduce the sentence in this $215,000 employee fraud case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge and Crown counsel that there was merit to our application for a judicial stay of proceedings based on our client's inability to properly defend the charges due to a delay of about 4 years in getting the charges approved. Notwithstanding this breach of trust, Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a plea arrangement in which our client received a 2 year conditional sentence order with a 10 pm curfew for 12 months. No monies were ordered to be repaid. No jail.

R. vs. M.P. – Abbotsford Police Investigation

Charges: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosucution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown and to ultimately persuade Crown counsel to not approve any charge in this case. No charge approves. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Failing to stop at an accident resulting in bodily harm.
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence, our client's background and his extreme remorse, whether a jail sentence was warranted.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was ble to direct our client through a course of psychological counselling and was able to persuade Crown counsel to agree to a non-custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a 12 month conditional sentence. No jail.

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

Charges: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether Crown counsel had sufficient evidence to meet the charge approval standard.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that important evidence would be missing from a cenrtal witness and to not approve any charges. No criminal record.

The Defence

Unreasonable Search

Section 8 of the Charter guarantees that people must be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The role of defence counsel in any search case is to analyze the actions of the investigating police officers to test whether their search was, in fact, lawful and authorized by the Charter. In some situations, police must obtain pre-authorization from a justice or judge in the form of a search warrant. Where police overreach their authority, and conduct a search based on mere suspicion, rather than probable grounds, we will apply to the court under s.24(2) of the Charter to have the “fruits of the search” excluded from the trial. Without the admission of the weapon into the trial, the court will likely find insufficient evidence to convict.

Lack of Possession

In many situations, people are arrested on weapons charges with the weapon not directly in their possession. For example, a knife might be in the glovebox or trunk of the car. It might be that the accused is not driving their own car but, rather, the car of a friend or relative. In these situations, absent any incriminating confession, it may be possible to argue that the accused had no knowledge of the weapon or that they had no control over it. As experienced defence lawyers, we understand the high standard that the law requires when prosecuting weapons offences. We are dedicated to protecting our client’s rights.

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.