R. v. SY
Mr. SY was charged with assault, mischief and failing to comply with probation against a domestic partner. He was in custody on these charges because he did not have any potential sureties. Ms. Bristow moved the matter along as quick as possible and set an early trial date a few months down the road. At the trial, the Crown advised that the police had difficulty locating the complainant and would be requesting an adjournment to locate her. The other option, the crown attorney suggested, was resolving his matter and pleading guilty. Mr. SY maintained his innocence and did not want to plead guilty, but was concerned about remaining in custody if the matter was adjourned. Mr. SY had faith in Ms. Bristow who vehemently contested the adjournment request by the crown attorney.
Mr. Bristow, in anticipation of this application was prepared with case law. Highlighting numerous reasons why there was only a hope that the complainant would turn up, and it would be prejudicial for Mr. SY to remain in custody while the complainant held the court hostage. After Ms. Bristow’s argument, there was no doubt in her mind that the judge would agree. Ms. Bristow was right and the judge dismissed the adjournment application. As a result, the crown attorney had no choice but to withdraw the charges. Mr. SY was released from the prisoner’s box and was able to go home.
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@example.com
Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes
Here, I post various success stories I have obtained for my clients in court.