The Queen v. B.(R.) 2015 #2
The same client mentioned below was charged again with three counts of possession for the purposes of trafficking. She had been arrested and searched a few days after being released on bail for the charges mentioned in the entry below. Again, Mr. van der Walle provided notice to the prosecutor of his Constitutional defense about 60 days before the trial. Again, Mr. van der Walle argued that his client had been illegally arrested and searched. And again, the prosecutor agreed. The charges were resolved with stay of proceedings before the trial. In the end, the client had been charged with six drug offences and was not convicted of a single offence. One happy client….
Related Stories
The King v. C.(R.) 2024
The police began investigating the client after a woman reported to them that two men had come to the door looking for her son. The woman explained that the men had told her son that he owed money from a drug debt and that he would be hurt if he did not pay. When...
The King v. T.(R.) 2024
Police were conducting a surveillance operation on the client and many other members of a suspected drug trafficking group in Vernon, Armstrong, and Enderby. The client was well known to police as he had a lengthy criminal record including no less than 7 prior...
The King v. S.(M.) 2024
A semi truck driver was cruising on the highway just outside of Revelstoke when another vehicle pulled out to pass him on a double solid line. While executing the pass, the other vehicle ended up clipping the semi as it tried to pull back into its lane which resulted...