Robbery and Other Violence

R. v. D.L.  Assault with Weapon, Mischief, Unlawful Possession of Credit Card, Utter Forged Document.

Client, who suffered from PTSD and addiction issues, was alleged to have gone on a brief but disturbingly violent crime spree.  Joel was able to get her into a mental health diversion program, where she received support. All charges were subsequently withdrawn.

R. v. J.M.  Robbery (x3).

Client was charged as a party to a series of bank robberies.  It was alleged that the client had prepared the note passed to tellers at the time of the robberies, and had assisted with the getaways.  After Joel identified problems with the evidence related to ID, all charges were withdrawn.

R. v. A.S.  Aggravated Assault.

Client was charged with stabbing the complainant in the abdomen and arm, during a fight that involved several others.  Surveillance video did not show the stabbing, but after a careful review of the events leading up to that confrontation, from video captured by several different cameras in the area, Joel was able to demonstrate that the client had come to defend his brother, who had been robbed by the complainant and several other thugs.  The Crown agreed to withdraw all of the charges once the client signed a peace bond.

R. v. J.L.  Aggravated Assault, Fail to Comply with Probation.

Client was charged after a fight outside a bar left the complainant with permanent brain damage.  Surveillance video appeared to show the client knock the alleged victim to the ground, but cross-examination of witnesses at the preliminary inquiry supported the defence that he had simply tripped, and struck his head on the curb.  The aggravated assault charges were withdrawn.

R. v. N.T.  Aggravated Assault, Mischief, Obstruct Justice and Fail to Comply with Recognizance.

When the client was arrested, she was intoxicated, and did not respond to questions from the arresting officer about whether she wanted to speak with a lawyer.  After sobering up in a police division cell, she was interviewed on video for nearly two hours without being given access to a lawyer (see Misconduct), and admitted assaulting the complainant.  At trial in Superior Court, Joel challenged the admissibility of the video statement because, among other things, the client hadn’t waived her right to a lawyer.  The Judge excluded the confession from her trial.

R. v. R.W.  Assault with a Weapon, Assault, Disguise with Intent.

31 inmates were charged with various crimes after a violent riot in a federal penitentiary which left one of the victims in hospital for months.  Nearly the entire incident was captured on video.  After reviewing dozens of hours of surveillance, Joel recognized problems with the manner in which correctional staff, and police, identified his client.  Ultimately, all charges against this client were withdrawn.  R.W. was the only one of the 31 accused who was not convicted of anything.

R. v. A.A-E.  Assault, Assault Resist Arrest, Disarm Peace Officer, etc.

This client was charged with eleven counts, stemming from a confrontation with police at a hospital where he was visiting a sick friend.  He came to Joel after trial dates had already been set by another lawyer.  Joel immediately obtained surveillance video which revealed that, while the accused had been intoxicated and belligerent, the officers had beaten him unconscious, and then fabricated their account of the incident in their notes.  All charges were stayed.