Mr. Shapray and Ms. Sandhu successfully represented a client who was charged with sexual assault occurring over many years in a business in Port Coquitlam. Using a strategic approach to defending the client based on current legal issues, Mr. Shapray and Ms. Sandhu brought pre-trial applications seeking access to counselling records and a personal journal. These steps led to a second adjournment of the case in the middle of the cross-examination of the complainant to continue the application for the journal based on the cross-examination. Crown counsel recognized some significant issues being faced including the right of the client to be tried within a reasonable time under the Charter and offered to resolve the case with a peace bond. – NOT GUILTY
Sexual Offences
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. J.T.
R. v. M.T.
Client was charged with sexually assaulting his wife during their marriage. The wife did not report the alleged offence until they were separated. Mr. Beckett persuaded the Crown to resolve the case with a peace bond instead of a prosecution. –NO CRIMINAL RECORD.
R. v. P.A.A.
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
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
R. v C.R.S.
Client was charged by indictment for one count of sexual assault against a woman after they had an encounter at a house party. The woman went to police and reported her allegations a year after the house party. The matter proceeded to trial in Provincial Court. Mr. Beckett was able to track down and interview all the attendees at the house party and call many of them as witnesses for the defence at trial. At trial Mr. Beckett challenged the complainant’s evidence and argued for an acquittal. The client was found. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. K.G.B.
Client was charged by indictment for one count of sexual assault against a women he went to a friend’s house with after meeting her at a bar one evening. The woman reported her allegations to police the following morning. The matter proceeded to trial in Provincial Court where Mr. Beckett made multiple pre-trial applications so important text messages and evidence of the complainant’s “other sexual activity” could be admitted into evidence at trial. At trial, Mr. Beckett used the text messages and evidence of the complainant’s “other sexual activity” to challenge the complainant’s allegations and argue for an acquittal. The judge found the client. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. J.T.
Client was charged by indictment for one count of sexual assault against his girlfriend during their relationship. The girlfriend reported her allegation to police after the relationship ended. Mr. Beckett challenged the girlfriend’s allegations at trial and argued for an acquittal. The judge found the client. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. L.G.
Mr. Shapray’s client was notified that he was being placed under investigation for a historical allegation of sexual assault at a work event over 15 years earlier. The client still worked at the same company and was placed on a leave and also notified that there would be an internal investigation. Mr. Shapray managed both investigations and put together a team which included a skilled employment lawyer to assist with some of the work investigation issues. Considerable pressure to cooperate with the police and investigators resisted as strategic decisions made along the way. Ultimately the police CLOSED THE FILE and determined that the allegations did not have merit. Employer rescinded leave and offered client his job back as well. – 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