Client was charged by indictment for sexual assault and sexual interference against his step-granddaughter. The case proceeded to trial in Supreme Court with a preliminary inquiry prior to trial. Mr. Beckett consulted with DNA and forensic sexual assault nurse experts prior to trial to assist in his attack on the Crown’s DNA and forensic sexual assault nursing examination evidence. Mr. Beckett challenged the complainant’s evidence at trial and argued for an acquittal. The client was found. – NOT GUILTY
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. P.A.A.
R. v. A.S.
Client was charged by indictment for theft from his employer in an amount over $5,000. The client was not a Canadian citizen and faced potentially significant immigration consequences if he was convicted. Mr. Beckett was persuaded the Crown to drop the client’s charges. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. A.R.
We were retained in the midst of a police investigation into sexual offence allegations. We became primary contact with police during this period resulting in police file closed. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. M. and A.
Crown brought applications under the Criminal Code to prohibit the clients – both avid firearms collectors – from possessing any firearms, based on allegations they had not stored their existing ones safely. Molly Shamess persuaded the Crown to drop the applications entirely.
R. V. S.L.
Client charged with Sexual Assault. The complainant reported she was incapacitated and woke up to the accused engaging in sexual relations with her. After extensive pre-trial preparation and three days of witness evidence and submissions by Ms. Badea, the Judge acquitted the client. Ms. Badea cross-examined the complainant at length, and the complainant’s version of events was found to be unreliable. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. F.
Following a two-day trial, the client was acquitted on all charges, including assault, assault by choking, and uttering a threat. Through a focused and rigorous cross-examination of the complainant on the first day of trial, significant credibility issues were exposed. This evidence created substantial reasonable doubt for both the Crown and the Court, leading to acquittals on all counts without the client being required to testify in their own defence.
R. v. G.
G. found by police working in marijuana grow-operation. Crown describes the grow operation as one of the “most sophisticated” in British Columbia with set-up costs estimated by police at over $1 million. Police find over 3,900 plants and 55 pounds of drying marijuana on site. Crown initially seeking penitentiary jail sentence. Result: G. sentenced to 18 months conditional sentence allowing him to serve his entire sentence at home. No jail time.
R v J.H.
Client was charged by indictment with sexual assault and sexual interference against an ex-girlfriend’s daughter. The case proceeded to trial. After a three-day trial and cross examination of multiple Crown witnesses, the Judge found that Ms. Badea’s skillful cross examination identified issues in the complainant’s evidence and the Judge acquitted the client.
R. v. P.T.
Impaired driving charges resolved with a plea to an offence under section 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act. We worked out a resolution of the case in which client is permitted to continue driving for employment and does not lose his job.
R. v. P.
T found driving while disqualified as a result of a previous impaired driving conviction. P facing multi-year driving prohibition if convicted plus possible jail sentence. Judge agrees with defence argument that insufficient evidence in crown’s case. – NOT GUILTY