R. v. R.W. Trafficking in Persons, Material Benefit, Withholding Documents, Exercise Control, Direction or Influence, Procuring a Person Under the Age of 18, Exercise Control, Direction or Influence of a Person Under the Age of 18, Living off the Avails of a Person Under the Age of 18, Trafficking of a Person Under the Age of 18, Sexual Assault, Robbery.
Client was initially charged with a series of very serious offences, after two young women accused him of pimping, robbing, and otherwise exploiting them. One of the women claimed that this began when she was underage, and involved repeated rapes. These offences, if proven, would have sent the client to the penitentiary for years. Joel cross-examined the women at a preliminary inquiry, establishing a record upon which to seek third-party records which he could use to impeach their credibility. At trial a number of records were produced to the defence, in light of which (after the client signed an agreement to stay away from the complainants), the Crown— who had made himself a witness in the proceedings by meeting with one of the young women alone, and was facing an application for his removal from the case—stayed the proceedings.
R. v. P.E. Failure to Appear in Court.
While on bail for serious drug trafficking charges, the client left Canada for more than a year, and missed his court dates. He was arrested at the airport upon his return. Joel presented evidence to the Court that the client had gone to Jamaica in order to take care of his dying mother, and had remained there for some time after her death, settling her estate. Following a plea of guilt, and those uncontested facts, the Court discharged him absolutely. As a result, the client does not have a record of conviction.
R. v. G.D. Summary Conviction Appeal.
Client came to Hechter Criminal Defence after having been convicted of breaching a Court Order (he had been represented by a different lawyer at trial). Joel appealed, arguing that the trial judge had misconstrued the client’s testimony. The conviction was overturned by the Court, and a new trial was Ordered. The Appeal Judge noted that “The appellant has now completed almost 12 months of the 18-month term of probation that was imposed by the trial judge. In all of the circumstances the Crown might give some thought to whether it would be in the interests of justice to proceed further in this matter.” The Crown did not re-prosecute.
R. v. A.A. Bail Pending Appeal at the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Client had been convicted, after a Superior Court trial with other counsel, of eight counts of Fraud Over $5000 and one count of Fraudulent Possession of Credit Card Data, involving a series of serious breaches of trust with his employer, a major bank. Joel successfully secured his release pending appeal at the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
R. v. G.G.B. Habeas Corpus.
After this client was injured in custody, and underwent surgery to repair the damage, the jail did not give him his medically prescribed post-operative painkillers. Joel brought an application for Habeas Corpus, and the Superior Court ordered that the client be seen by a doctor that same day, and that the jail provide all medication prescribed.
R. v. I.K. Conspiracy to Break and Enter, Break and Enter with Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence.
Client was charged, along with two others, after a break-in at his then-employer using his security alarm code, which resulted in the theft of hundreds of thousands of dollars in office supplies. Joel brought an application in Superior Court under s. 11(b) of the Charter, because the client had not been granted a trial within a reasonable time, and all charges were stayed by the Crown, without even contesting the application.
R. v. T.H. Sexual Assault, Invitation to Sexual Touching.
Client was charged with sexually assaulting a sixteen year old girl who he had allegedly lured to his home by pretending to be a girl on facebook, and invitation to sexual touching against a fourteen year old girl who he had propositioned, over the course of months, online. The Crown contested bail, arguing that it was necessary to detain him pending trial, for the protection of the public. Client was released.