R. v. VI Mr. VI was alleged to have punched and pistol whipped the complainant in his hotel room, completely unprovoked. A preliminary inquiry was held to test whether there was enough evidence to bring Mr. VI to trial. The complainant and his friend both testified that they were at a birthday party on the second floor of a hotel. Around 4am, the complainant was having a cigarette on the balcony of his room when he somehow dropped his keys onto the balcony below him. He went down to that room and knocked on the door when the accused and his friend allegedly opened the door and began assaulting him. This case was particularly difficult because there were problems with the complainant’s police statement in that there was video but no audio, so Ms. Bristow only had the police notes of the complainant’s statement to rely on. Further, the complainant’s friend refused to provide a statement to the police at the scene. As a result, Ms. Bristow was at a significant disadvantage when preparing for the preliminary inquiry. The complainant, his friend and several officers testified at the preliminary inquiry. Through cross-examination, significant weaknesses in the Crown’s case became apparent during the contradictory evidence of the complainant and his friend, as well as internal inconsistencies within the complainant’s own evidence. After the evidence was heard, the Crown attorney agreed with Ms. Bristow and decided to withdraw the charges against Mr. VI. If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at [email protected] Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes
1 Comment
R. v. S.
Mr. S. had a lengthy record for crimes of dishonesty including Frauds and Thefts. As a result of his criminal record for breaches of court orders, and the fact that he did not have anyone to supervise him if he was released from custody, Mr. S remained in custody pending the resolution or trial of his charges. Diversion is an alternative to prosecution that is typically offered to accused’s persons who do not have a criminal record. The programs often involve some sort of community service, making a charitable donation or counselling. Due to the requirements of the program, it is very rare that someone who is in custody is able to complete a diversion program. Despite this, Ms. Bristow was able to negotiate an informal diversion program for Mr. S whereby he complete some upfront work in custody to have his charges withdrawn. This was exceptional not only because Mr. S was in custody, but because he already had amassed quite a few convictions on his record. After Ms. Bristow’s negotiations and his completion of the diversion program, Mr. S did not add another conviction to that list. If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at [email protected] Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. BC
Mr. BC was alleged to have uttered a threat to kill the complainant while pointing a firearm at him. The next day, the police executed a search warrant on Mr. BC’s vehicle and found a pistol, 222 grams of Cocaine, 9 grams of MDMA, 69 grams of marijuana and over $5000 in Canadian currency. Although Mr. BC had a prior criminal record, Ms. Bristow was able to obtain a release for Mr. BC on the Friday before a long weekend so that he did not have to spend any more time in custody. If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at [email protected] Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. M.
Mr. M (18) and the complainant (13) were two teenagers who were exploring their sexual identity. They met on a public gay chatroom application that required users to confirm that they were 17 years old or older primarily sexual in nature. Ms. Bristow argued that the complainant lied about his age when Mr. M asked his age/sex/location; rather than admitting he was 13, the complainant said he was 17/male/Canada. The conversation moved to a private text application called KIK, where they exchanged photographs of their faces, private parts and discussed sexual explicit acts, including a planned meet up to engage in sexual activity. They in fact met in person and engaged in sexual activity. The sole issue at trial was whether Mr. M had an honest but mistaken belief in the complainant’s age and whether he took all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant’s age. In other words, if Mr. M believed that the complainant was the age of consent, the defence of consent was available to Mr. M. Although there was some disagreement at first, through cross-examination, it became clear to the Crown and His Honour that the complainant was a willing participant and consented to all of the sexually explicit conversation and activity. Through cross-examination of the Crown witnesses, Mr. Bristow as able to point holes in the Crown’s theory that Mr. M knew the complainant was 13 years old. She spent hours with Mr. M preparing him to testify with confidence both in direct examination in chief and cross-examination. Ms. Bristow’s preparations proved to be fruitful as it took the jury less than an hour to come back with an acquittal on all three charges (Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference and Invitation to Sexual Touching). If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at [email protected] Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes |
AuthorHere, I post various success stories I have obtained for my clients in court. Archives
October 2019
Categories |