R. facing two drug trafficking charges in a dial-a-dope operation. Five days before a three day trial is set to commence, defence counsel meets with Crown with the result that all charges are dropped.
Drug Charges
R. v. R.
R. v. P.
P charged with production of marijuana after being found in a large commercial grow-op. After 3 days of trial all charges dismissed against P. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. J.
Accused pulled over by police who smell marijuana and as a result search the vehicle and find a quantity of marijauana. Court agrees with Defence argument that there were no grounds to arrest J and search the vehicle. Result: Evidence excluded, J found. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. R.
H sells heroin to an undercover officer in a Dial-A-Dope operation. Crown seeking 6 months in jail. Court agrees with defence that a 90 day intermittent (weekend) sentence was appropriate.
R. v. B.
B charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after stopped by police with a large amount of cocaine found on his person. After trial B found not guilty of charge as Judge agrees with defence argument that identification of the offender not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
R. v. J.W.
Client retained us after she was convicted of multiple counts of drug trafficking at a trial. Crown prosecutor was seeking over 1 year in jail on sentencing. We managed the sentencing process and made extensive legal submissions resulting in client receiving a conditional sentence.
R. v. H. [2013]
H stopped by police who find 3 kilos of cocaine in his vehicle. Judge agrees that search was unlawful, evidence is excluded. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. C.
Ms. Shamess successfully challenged the facial validity of a search warrant on a residence, and the police’s failure to comply with their obligations after they seize property. Trial judge agreed that the police breached the client’s Charter rights to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, and ruled that the evidence from the search of the residence and of the client’s vehicle should be excluded from trial. – CASE DROPPED
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.