Client was found guilty of a serious sexual assault against his ex-girlfriend while represented by a lawyer at a different law firm. He hired Mike Beckett and Molly Shamess to appeal the conviction, and they not only got the client released from jail pending the hearing of the appeal, but won the appeal and got the client’s conviction overturned.
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. A.B.
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 S.C.
Client was charged with multiple uttering threats, assault and breach charges against an ex-partner in two separate files with the allegations spanning over several months. Client had been released on bail during several of the subsequent charges. Ms. Badea was able to resolve the files and charges with no criminal record through negotiations and extensive submissions regarding the flaws in the Crown’s case. – No Criminal Record
R. v. M.H.
Female client charged with multi-year fraud involving misappropriation of funds in her role as a bookkeeper. We employed a delay and counseling strategy which permitted client to obtain valuable counseling and make partial repayment of stolen funds. Client had prior criminal record but still received conditional sentence after our extensive submissions at the sentencing hearing.
R. v. H.
H charged with a number of sexual assault charges allegedly against his young daughter. Also charged with simple assault. After 6 days of trial, all sexual assault charges dismissed. H receives suspended sentence and probation for the single charge of simple assault that he admitted to.
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. J.M.
Client was charged with assault causing bodily harm after a fight with a former neighbour. Molly Shamess successfully cross-examined the former neighbour on the first day of trial, leading Crown to invite an acquittal without the judge even needing to hear the rest of the case. Client found – 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. vs. V.
Police executed a Search Warrant at the home of the client and located a handgun in his room. Mr. Stern raised the issue of the legality of the search during a pre-trial application and was successful in persuading the Judge to rule that the police search was illegal. The evidence was then excluded from trial under the Charter and all charges were dismissed. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. T.A.S.
Client was charged by indictment for one count of sexual assault against his wife during their relationship. The wife went to police with her allegations many months later, after the marriage ended and during an intense family law custody battle over their child. The case proceeded to trial where Mr. Beckett vigorously challenged the Complainant’s evidence. Before Mr. Beckett’s cross-examination had even concluded the Crown stayed the proceedings, as the Crown no longer felt there was any likelihood of conviction. – NOT GUILTY