Source: http://www.singhlaw.ca/about-neil-singh-newmarket-criminal-lawyer-toronto/successes/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:15:04+00:00

Document:
Click on the links below for examples of the success I have been able to achieve for my clients.
• R v. K.D. – client charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in crack cocaine after a police search of the accused’s vehicle revealed a quantity of crack cocaine concealed within the car along with cash, a knife and an operating police scanner. At trial, Neil brought an application to exclude all of the evidence pursuant to an infringement of his client’s Charter rights. The Court agreed, excluded all of the evidence against the accused, and the client was acquitted of all charges before the Court.
• R v. M.S. – Neil’s client was arrested for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. The accused was charged after a traffic stop of a vehicle his client was a passenger in was found to have two pounds of marijuana vacuum packed in the trunk. After negotiating with the Crown regarding the weakness of their case, including the unlawful nature of the traffic stop, the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges against Neil’s client.
• R v. T.W. – Neil’s client was arrested and charged for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking after the police found marijuana plants in the basement of a residence where Neil’s client was the victim of a recent assault. After demonstrating to the Crown Attorney that they could not prove that his client lived at the residence, or that his client even knew of the existence of the marijuana plants, the Crown agreed to halt the prosecution against Neil’s client.
• R v. D.N. – Client was charged with possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana, and possession of a prohibited weapon, all of which were found after an unlawful traffic stop of the accused’s vehicle. After negotiating with the Crown, it was agreed that all the charges against Neil’s client would be withdrawn.
• R v. R.M.R. – Client charged with trafficking cocaine to police on two separate occasions. After negotiating with the Crown, regarding the remarkably weak case they had against his client, Neil was able to secure a withdrawal of all charges against his client.
• R v. E.B. – Neil’s client was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. A search warrant of the accused’s residence revealed a large amount of crack cocaine within a safe of the residence. After long negotiations with the Crown, Neil was able to secure a withdrawal of the charges against his client.
• R v. L.S. – Neil’s client was charged with trafficking crack cocaine. On the day of trial, the Crown agreed that they had no case against Neil’s client. Neil demonstrated that on his client’s arrest the police found no cocaine, no weapons, and no money. They simply had no evidence that his client was dealing drugs. The Crown withdrew the charge.
• R v. J.S. – Neil’s client was charged with trafficking crack cocaine. On the day of trial, Neil demonstrated to the Crown that they had no reasonable prospect of conviction, and withdrew the charge against his client.
• R v. K.M. – Neil’s client was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, posession of marijuana, possession of percocets, as well as, possessing various restricted and prohibited firearms. Neil’s client was facing a minimum of 3 years in jail if found guilty of the firearm offences. After a preliminary inquiry, all of the gun charges were dismissed by the Court and the Cocaine charge was downgraded to a simple possession charge. After a pretrial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Neil’s client pled guilty to possession of marijuana, the only charge Neil’s client admitted to being guilty of. All other charges were withdrawn.
• R v. K.W. – Neil’s client was arrested and charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking of cocaine, marijuana and ketamine. After a long pretrial process, and tough negotiations with the Crown Attorney, the charges against Neil’s client were all withdrawn.
• R v. R.K. – Neil’s client was charged with two others for their alleged involvement of a swarming assault on a patron at a movie theatre. Neil’s client was identified by the victim and various witnesses of the assault after they were handcuffed and paraded by the police in front of the witnesses and while in custody. Neil argued on behalf of his client that this type of identification is very weak and provided case law to support his position. The Court agreed and acquitted Neil’s client after a two day trial.
• R v. R.P. – Neil’s client was charged with two others for their alleged involvement in a swarming assault on the victim of the assault. The identification of Neil’s client as being involved was very weak, and Neil had spoken to two other witnesses who said that his client was not involved in the fight. At trial, after negotiating with the Crown attorney, the charges against Neil’s client were withdrawn.
• R v. U.A. – Neil’s client was charged with domestic assault against his estranged wife by hitting her with a door. Neil negotiated with the Crown and established that the Crown could not prove that his client knew that the complainant was on the other side of the door. He also established that the Crown could not prove that his client even meant to strike her with the door. The Crown withdrew all charges against his client.
• R v. T.B. – Neil’s client was charged with assault, assault with a weapon, and utter threats against his wife. After his negotiations with the Crown, it was agreed that the charges against Neil’s client would be withdrawn.
• R v. C.M. – Neil’s client was charged with Assault, Choking, and Threatening the mother of his child. The Crown was pursuing a jail sentence against Neil’s client. Neil provided important information to the Crown regarding the case. After reviewing and confirming the accuracy of the information Neil provided, the Crown withdrew all charges against Neil’s client.
• R v. D.G.A. – Neil’s client was charged with Assault with a Weapon for engaging in a bar fight where it was alleged that he assaulted the complainant with a wine glass. On the day of trial, Neil provided information to the Crown, including the fact that the “victim” in the case had outstanding charges for a separate bar fight. After confirming the information, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges against Neil’s client.
• R v. D.A. – Neil’s client was charged with assault, utter threats and mischief over $5000 against the mother of his infant child. The Crown had deemed Neil’s client a high risk offender. At trial, midway through Neil’s cross-examination of the complainant, the Crown requested that all charges against Neil’s client be dismissed.
• R v. K.M. – Neil’s client was charged with assaulting a peace officer after she was arrested by the police for having open liquor in a public place. At trial, Neil cross-examined the police officers involved at length and was able to establish many inconsistencies in their evidence. Neil also made use of a Youtube video of part of the incident to undermine the officer’s evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, the Court acquitted Neil’s client of all charges before the Court.
• R v. K.L. – Neil’s client was charged with assault & mischief to property resulting from a fight outside of a bar. During the course of the trial, it became apparent that the “victim” in this case was lying to the Court. After discussing the matter with the Crown Attorney, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges against Neil’s client.
• R v. M.N. – client charged with two counts of sexual assault, one count of uttering a death threat, one count of unlawfully in dwelling, and one count breach probation. Two complainants made very similar allegations against the accused. The accused’s position was that he was guilty of the threat, but did not commit any of the other offences. At trial, Neil attacked each of the complainant’s credibility and suggested that the complainants had concocted the allegations against the accused in order to remove him from their life for their own selfish purposes. At the conclusion of the Crown’s case, the Crown withdrew the breach of probation. At the end of the trial, the accused was acquitted of all the remaining charges except for the threat that he admitted he was guilty of.
• R v. B.P. – Neil’s client was charged with sexual assault after the mother of his child made serious allegations against him. Neil negotiated with the Crown and demonstrated that the complainant had a motive to lie, and that Neil’s client had serious medical issues which cast doubt on whether or not a sexual assault even occurred. The Crown Attorney made the decision to withdraw the charge against Neil’s client.
• R v. E.B. – Neil’s client was charged with possession of property obtained by crime. A search warrant at the accused’s residence revealed over $50,000 worth of stolen property in the garage. After lengthy negotiations with the Crown, it was agreed that the Crown could not prove that Neil’s client knew about the property and as a result, all the charges were withdrawn.
• R v. J.J. – Neil’s client was charged with breaking into a residence and stealing the personal effects of the homeowner. A statement by a neighbour of the victim pointed the finger directly at Neil’s client as being the perpetrator of the Break & Enter. After discussing the matter with his client, Neil determined that his client could not have possibly committed the offence. Neil served the Crown with a notice of an alibi defence and he interviewed and subpoenaed his client’s employer at the time of the offence. The Crown reviewed the matter and agreed that the alibi was solid. All charges against Neil’s client were withdrawn.
• R v. R.M. – Neil’s client was charged with 8 counts of failing to comply with his bail by not reporting to the police as required. On the day of trial, Neil provided the Crown with his client’s telephone records showing that he in fact had been reporting as required. In addition to establishing that the Crown could call no admissible evidence in support of the charges. The Crown agreed and withdrew all charges against the accused at the start of the trial.
• R v. B.O. – Neil’s client was charged with failing to report as required by his bail. Neil’s client in fact did not report as required. However, in his negotiations with the Crown, Neil was able to demonstrate that the client’s failure to report was an innocent misunderstanding. The Crown agreed to withdraw the charge against his client.
• R v. J.B. – Neil’s client was arrested and charged with being Unlawfully at Large after he failed to show up to the jail to serve his weekend sentence on two separate occasions. Neil demonstrated to the Crown that his client had in fact served the weekends as he was required to do so. The Crown withdrew the charges against Neil’s client.
• R v. F.S. – Neil’s client was charged with failing to abide by the curfew on his bail. At his bail hearing, Neil showed evidence to the Crown that his client had been injured in an accident and could not physically make it home in time as a result. The Crown agreed, and withdrew the charge against Neil’s client.
• R v. M.G. – client was found by police sleeping in his vehicle on the shoulder of Highway 407 while he was clearly intoxicated. He was charged with having “Care or Control” of a motor vehicle while impaired. At trial, Neil called evidence on behalf of the defence establishing that the accused did not have care or control of the motor vehicle and that an alternative plan existed for the accused to get home which did not involve the accused driving the motor vehicle. The Court found that the defence raised a reasonable doubt and Neil’s client was found not guilty of all charges.
• R v. H.A. – Neil’s client was accused of being involved in a car chase in what the Crown alleged was an attempted kidnapping of two children. He was charged with Dangerous Driving. After a preliminary inquiry, the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges as against Neil’s client.
• R v. A.M. – Neil’s client was charged with Driving While Disqualified. She had pled guilty with the assistance of Duty Counsel on a prior occasion to Dangerous Driving. One month into the Court ordered one year driving prohibition the police caught Neil’s client driving. On the day of trial, Neil convinced the Crown to withdraw the charge against his client.
• R v. A.S. – Neil’s client was charged with Dangerous Driving after a police officer followed him and observed him swerving all over the road and jumping curbs in a residential neighbourhood. In negotiations with the Crown, Neil provided a report from a mechanic that demonstrated that at the time all of this driving occurred, the brakes on the vehicle had failed preventing Neil’s client from being able to stop or operate his vehicle as required by law. The Crown withdrew the charge against Neil’s client.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.