There are many offences under the Criminal Code that fall under the category of a sexual offence. In addition to traditional sexual offences such as sexual assault, sexual interference and indecent acts, the development and proliferation of the internet has created a whole new category of sexual offences. These include offences such as luring a child over the internet and communicating with someone under the age of 18 in relation to the payment for sexual services.
Online investigations by the RCMP and local police forces are regular and target offences such as the possession and accessing of child pornography as well as the making and distribution of such materials. These are extremely serious offences in Canada and often commence with an online investigation or tip being received by a law enforcement agency and end with the execution of Search Warrants and the seizure and forensic examination of electronic devices such as computers, smart phones, tablets and laptops.
R. v. C.A. 
Client under investigation after surreptitious police sting by Vancouver Police on Leo List targeting people communicating with online escorts. Client arrested after arriving at hotel in relation to communications with police officer posing as a person under 18 years of age. Discussions and negotiations with Crown Counsel during charge approval stage resulted in NO CRIMINAL CHARGES.
R. v. D.R. 
Client was a lawyer charged with possession of CP (s.164.3 of the Criminal Code). Program of counselling and psychological evaluation undertaken prior to sentencing. Significant focus of negotiations with the Crown focussed on the concept of "collateral consequences" due to loss of ability to be a lawyer and media coverage destroying reputation. seeding lengthy jail sentence. Conditional Sentence Order (CSO) granted by judge on sentencing meaning client could serve sentence at home and continue to do counselling in the community - NO JAIL.
CSO - No JAIL!
R. v. B.B. 
Client was an elder at a church and charged with a number of historical offences involving a female congregant at the church. Significant legal and factual issues arising in the scope of the allegations were addressed in surgical cross-examination by Mr. Shapray which resulted in clear evidence that some of the allegations "could not" have happened as alleged. Crown prosecutor revisited allegations and charges and agreed to resolve the case by dropping a number of charges and agreeing to a joint submissions for a Conditional Sentence Order.
R. v. H.K. 
Client charged with possession of CP (s.164.3 of the Criminal Code). Program of counselling and psychological evaluation undertaken prior to sentencing. Crown seeding lengthy jail sentence. Defence sought Conditional Sentence Order (CSO). Judge granted CSO meaning client could serve sentence at home and continue to work and do counselling in the community - NO JAIL.
CSO - No JAIL!
R. v. A.V. 
Client found NOT GUILTY of a number of sexual offences after a trial at the British Columbia Supreme Court in New Westminster. Mr. Shapray's cross-examination of witnesses at trial exposed a series of significant inconsistencies and signs of collusion between the witnesses. Case proceeded to trial after a Preliminary Inquiry which exposed many issues which had a positive impact on the result at trial - ACQUITTAL!
NOT GUILTY VERDICT!
R. v. G.D. 
Client on Vancouver Island charged with very serious allegations of sexual interference involving teenager in the neighborhood. Allegations vehemently denied and challenged as being untrue. Prosecutor asked to re-visit charge approval and ultimately agreed that criminal charges were not warranted and case resolved with PEACE BOND prior to trial date being set.
Peace Bond - No Criminal Record!
R. v. A.B. 
Client arrested in relation to high profile Vancouver Police sting involving fake Leo List advertising for escorts. Allegations concerned a “bait and switch” where age of the escort changed mid-communication resulting in allegations of illegal communication with someone under 18 years old. Evidence of the “purpose” and meaning of the communications in this particular case challenged during charge approval stage resulting in CHARGES NOT BEING APPROVED!
CHARGES NOT APPROVED.
R. v. O.M. 
Client and his friend were charged with sexual assault that arose on what had started as a consensual sexual interaction involving three people. The allegations were attacked factually and multiple meetings and discussions with the prosecutor which ultimately resulted in charges being DROPPED and client entered into a PEACE BOND – NO CRIMINAL RECORD.
PEACE BOND – NO CRIMINAL RECORD.
R. v. K.L. 
Client was advised that he was under investigation for sexual assault and had been contacted by the police to make a statement. Mr. Shapray was retained during the investigation stage of the proceedings to advise client and his family and determine the best strategy for dealing with the investigation by the police. After a number of months, client advised by the police that NO CHARGES were to be laid and that the file was being closed.
R. v. S.J. 
Client retained Mr. Shapray after he was placed under investigation for sexual assault in relation to an encounter with an escort he met online. Challenges were made to the credibility of the person who made the complaint which ultimately led to NO CHARGES being approved.
R. v. Y.W. 
Female client under police investigation for a sexual allegation arising out of a situation in a massage parlour. Mr. Shapray was retained during police investigation and engaged in discussions with the investigating police officer and the Crown prosecutor resulting in a decision not to proceed with charges – NO CHARGE!
R. v. S.N. 
Client arrested in relation to an allegation made by a woman who met through a social media app. Client has believed all contact was consensual and was shocked at police involvement. Mr. Shapray was retained during the investigative stage and became primary point of contact with the police. After a few months, the police determined that there was not enough evidence and did not prepare a Report to Crown – NO CHARGE.
R. v. J.G. 
Female client charged with two counts of sexual assault. One charge spanning a two year period against another female friend. The other charge against a male at a party. All allegations denied as being false. Case was set for a preliminary inquiry to challenge the accusations under oath and prepare for a trial. Issues arose on the morning of trial that led to negotiations resulting in a Peace Bond resolution – NO CRIMINAL RECORD and NO JAIL.
PEACE BOND – NO CRIMINAL RECORD and NO JAIL.
R. v. M.O. 
Client charged with sexual offences over the internet after being caught up in a Creep Catchers sting. Issues with the police investigation and the nature of the Creep Catchers involvement were raised with Crown Counsel during the initial stages of the case and the charges were dropped with client entering into a Peace Bond – NO CRIMINAL RECORD.
PEACE BOND – NO CRIMINAL RECORD.
R. v. T.H. 
Client was a female teenager who had worked for a number of years as a babysitter for a family in the neighborhood. Charges of sexual assault and sexual interference were brought by one of the children being babysat over the years. Client found NOT GUILTY by the Judge after a trial in which the evidence of the complainant was vigorously challenged through cross-examination and many aspects of the allegations were demonstrated to have never taken place.
R. v. S.D. 
Client was a truck driver who was stopped randomly at the Canadian border and had his phone searched by border guards. A video that met the definition of CP was found on the phone within a social media app. Client denied ever being aware of the video or ever accessing it on his phone. This issue was pressed by Mr. Shapray during the initial stages of the case and the charges were DROPPED by the prosecutor after the technical analysis was demonstrated to support the client’s version of events.
R. v. M.N. 
Client contacted Mr. Shapray after search warrant executed on his residence in relation to an allegation that he had set up hidden cameras in his ex-girlfriend’s apartment to record her. Mr. Shapray was involved with the police during the investigation and the charges were not sent to Crown for approval and the client’s property was returned.
R. v. D.L. 
Client in the interior of BC charged with sexual interference as a result of a relationship with a woman under the legal age of consent. Mr. Shapray examined police file and conducted defence investigation which resulted in evidence that the woman had lied about her age and that the case could not be prosecuted as client had a valid defence – CHARGES DROPPED – NO CRIMINAL RECORD.
CHARGES DROPPED – NO CRIMINAL RECORD.
R. v. H.M. 
Client under investigation for odd allegation of non-consensual sexual relationship with a former girlfriend. Mr. Shapray retained during investigation and dealt with police and crown prosecutor resulting in NO CHARGES. CASE CLOSED!
NO CHARGES. CASE CLOSED!