Client charged with sexual assault and indecent act. Defence counsel outlined all weaknesses in Crown’s case to persuade Crown to cease the continuation of the prosecution. As a result of defence counsel’s diligence and trial preparation, all charges were stayed a week before trial was scheduled to commence.
Case Results
At Stern Shapray, we provide legal representation across a wide range of criminal and quasi-criminal matters, from serious charges to regulatory and provincial offences.
R. v. B.L.
R. v. K.A.F.
Client was charged with Fraud Over $5,000 and Forgery for making false insurance claims. Mr. Beckett persuaded the Crown to agree to simply drop the charges. – NOT GUILTY
R.v. M.
M was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine and heroine. The matter proceeded to trial. At trial we challenged the legality of the search of M’s purse, the location of the large quantity of drugs, based on the lack of grounds the police officer had to arrest M. The Judge ruled that the arrest of M was unlawful and therefore the search of M’s purse incidental to the arrest was also unlawful. The Judge excluded the drugs from evidence and M was therefor found. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. C.L.
Client charged with assault. CHARGE DROPPED by Crown in response to arguments by defence counsel that there was no substantial likelihood of conviction.
R. v. D.
Client charged with breaking and entering, robbery, and unlawful confinement. Complainant, a former roommate of the client, said the client broke into his house, assaulted him, and stole a significant amount of cash and property. Client testified at trial that the complainant had been the aggressor, attacking her and trying to prevent her from leaving when she returned to collect her belongings after moving out. Judge accepted the client’s evidence and held that the complainant’s evidence did not withstand scrutiny under cross-examination by counsel. Client found not guilty on all charges. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. K.R.
Client charged with several property and driving offences including dangerous operation and driving while prohibited. Defence counsel negotiated with Crown and laid out weaknesses in Crown’s case, including the frailties of the identification evidence against client as the driver of the vehicle. Crown ultimately stayed all charges related to driving as a result of defence counsel’s negotiations. – CHARGES DISMISSES
R. v. T.A.
Mr. Shapray and Ms. Shamess were successful in challenging a search on a rural property in Chilliwack that contained a number of outbuildings. The facial challenge to the search warrant resulted in a finding by the trial judge that the search of the mobile home on the property was not properly authorized. Charter breach found and evidence excluded.
R. v. A.R.
Client received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for failing or refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device (“ASD”). 90-day IRP overturned after the adjudicator agreed with counsel’s arguments that A.R. did not willfully fail or refuse to comply with the ASD demand.
R. v. A.A.
The accused was charged with three sexual offences resulting from allegations of groping in a local mall. Discussions with prosecutor commenced well in advance of the trial and led to our office managing a treatment and counselling program for the client which ultimately resulted in the charges being dropped prior to trial.
R. v. O.P.
Client was charged by indictment with committing an indecent act in a public place. The indecent act was captured on a witness’ cellphone video. The Crown initially sought a jail sentence, but Mr. Beckett was able to persuade the Crown to agree to a joint submission for a Conditional Discharge with only one year of probation and which would ultimately leave the client. – NOT GUILTY