Molly Shamess was lead counsel on a complex drug case (PPT) in Prince George. Ms. Shamess ultimately brought a delay application (Jordan Application) due to Crown and systematic delay seeking a remedy of a Judicial Stay of Proceedings. The application was successful which resulted in the case against the accused being discontinued.
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. C.S.
R. v. R.M.
Mr. Shapray’s client was facing a number of criminal charges arising out of a domestic relationship including assault, threats and animal cruelty. Client denied all allegations and case was prepared for contested trial. Negotiations with the prosecutor in the weeks leading up to the trial dates led to all criminal charges being dropped and client entering into a Common Law Peace Bond (not a Criminal Code Peace Bond) which also assisted client in his custody and access applications regarding his children in the family law courts – NO CRIMINAL RECORD.
R. v. A.D.
Client charges with very serious offences including Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Drug Trafficking (Cocaine and Fentanyl) and Possession of a Loaded Firearms involving proactive police surveillance and search resulting in the location of a “secret compartment” in the vehicle containing drugs, cash and a loaded gun. Case proceeded through the Preliminary Inquiry at the Provincial Court and was then scheduled for trial at the B.C. Supreme Court. In the last week before the trial, the prosecutor provided some late disclosure which led to further communications and letters between defence counsel and the prosecutor as a risk of an adjournment loomed over the case. Mr. Shapray was able to negotiate for all charges against his client being DROPPED with a plea by the passenger in the vehicle. Client has been facing lengthy driving prohibition and mutli-year federal jail sentence. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. Z.P.
90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition overturned after the adjudicator agreed with counsel’s submissions that the ASD “FAIL” readings were unreliable due to the recent consumption of cough syrup. Driver’s license returned and vehicle storage and impound costs reimbursed.
R. v. M.R.
Client charged with fraud in relation to expenditure issues while employed for a City in the Lower Mainland. We negotiated a resolution involving partial restitution of amount alleged to have been taken. Client also received conditional sentence from Judge after sentencing submissions.
R.v.N
Client charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking. The Police had stopped N at roadblock and detected an odour of marijuana. Police proceeded to search N and his vehicle. 28 pieces of crack cocaine were found, along with three cell phones and over $500 cash. The Judge agreed that search was unlawful. – ALL CHARGES DISMISSED
R. v. D.D.
90 Day driving prohibition involving allegation of refusal to provide a breath sample at the roadside. Factual challenge to the IRP with affidavits filed and medical letter resulting in driving prohibition being revoked.
R. v. M.R.
Client was charged with theft under $5,000 after being caught on camera and by loss prevention for shoplifting from a department store. Mr. Beckett was able to persuade the Crown to drop the client’s charges. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. S.B.
Ms. Badea and Mr. Shapray represented a youth under police investigation for an assault of another youth at a competitive sporting competition. Due to the location of the allegations and the governing body of the sport, even a charge approval could have significant collateral consequeces for the client. Ms. Badea and Mr. Shapray were able to persuade the prosecutor to refer the matter to extrajudicial sanctions (EJS) which involves the matter being dealt with outside the formal court process. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. A.R.
Client received a 90-Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (“IRP”) after blowing two “FAIL” readings. IRP overturned after the adjudicator agreed with defence counsel’s arguments that, despite the officer’s claim to the contrary, the second breath test was not performed on a different approved screening device.