Brampton Criminal Lawyer

Bhangal & Virk Brampton Criminal Lawyer is a local Brampton Criminal Lawyer. Brampton Criminal Lawyer Bhangal & Virk is a well known and respected criminal defence lawyer in the Brampton courthouse. It is always in your best interest to hire a local Brampton Criminal Lawyer. Our Criminal Lawyer Brampton firm is a Criminal Defence law firm in the Mississauga & Brampton area. As Mississauga Criminal Lawyers we are focused & committed to working tirelessly with our clients to obtain the best results. Whether you or someone you know has been charged with a criminal offence, or are being investigated for any criminal reasons, feel free to contact our criminal lawyers team immediately for professional and expert legal advice. We provide quality services to residents of Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Oakville, Milton, Burlington, Markham, North York, Scarborough and the Greater Toronto Area. The best legal defense is to have the best criminal lawyers team on your side that can confidently and expertly defend you against criminal charges. Read More



Services


Drinking & Driving

This is why it is important to retain a lawyer who has a complete and comprehensive understanding of the technical defences

Assaults

Assault can range from physical contact involving to push to more serious forms of conduct resulting in injuries. Generally an

Theft / Fraud / Robbery

There are countless ways in which clients get charged with theft, fraud or robbery related charges. Theft charges can range for shoplifting

Sexual Offences

Sexual assault can be generally defined as an assault of a sexual nature on another person, or any sexual act committed without consent

Drugs

Drug offences can generally be classified into three categories: possession; possession for the purpose of trafficking; and trafficking.

Youth
Offences

When a person is charged with a criminal offence and is under the age of 18, he or she is considered to be a young person,

Other Offences

The law firm of Peel Criminal Lawyer defend all criminal and quasi-criminal matters. We have the requisite experience in representing

Our Criminal Lawyer Role

Our Brampton and Mississauga criminal lawyers and defence lawyers have experience and expertise in representing


View All


Recent Successes

Drinking Driving

Case: Our client was charged with refusing to blow into a roadside screening device. Our client insisted that he did try to blow. There was no medical reason why he couldn't blow.

At trial - We cross-examined the police officer with regards to his knowledge of the device he used. It was shown that the officer didn't really know much about the device, other than the basics.

Result - the Judge was not satisfied that the officer was operating the device properly and that he was getting an error message due to our client's actions. The Judge accepted our clients evidence that he was genuinely trying to blow into the approved screening device. Our client won his case.

R v. M.S.M

Drinking Driving

Case - Our client was charged with refusing to provide a proper breath sample into a roadside screening device. Our client told the officer that he "wasn't going to blow". Our client was afraid to blow into the device, due to concerns that he would blow over. This particular client had a prior record for a similar offence. We knew that the evidence would not be good at trial. We advised our client that we would have to try to win the case without his testimony.

At Trial - The officer wasn't able to explain to the court what his basis was for making the demand. He wasn't able to articulate exactly what the error message was that was being displayed on the approved screening device.

Result - The Judge could not be satisfied that the error message on the device was the proper error message which would signify that our client wasn't blowing properly. We created a doubt that the error message may have meant the device was malfunctioning. This was all done without our client having to testify.

R. v. A.D.

Drinking Driving

Case - Our client was charged with refusing to blow into an Intoxilyzer 5000C. Our clients refusal was video recorded by the police (usually standard procedure). Our client said that he wanted to speak to another lawyer other than the duty counsel that he had already spoken to. The officer kept asking him what the name of the lawyer was. Our client was saying that he needs to talk to his brother to get a name of a lawyer.

At Trial - we argued that our client's right to speak to a lawyer of his choice was violated. It was further argued that since the police controlled our client's access to a telephone, they had a higher duty to ensure that reasonable efforts were made to get the name and number of the lawyer our client wanted to speak to.

Result - After watching the video tape in open court, the Crown was so shocked by the officer's conduct that she asked the Judge to dismiss the charges.

R. v. R.R.

Assaults

Case - Our client was charged with criminal harassment and assault (x2) against his girlfriend. Our client maintained his innocence and we ultimately set a date for trial. The client had received two peace bonds in the past for similar types of offences. Based on his history and the complainant's views, the Crown initially refused to allow our client to enter into another peace bond.

Trial - At trial, we presented numerous photographic and documentary evidence to the Crown. This evidence cast serious doubt on the credibility and truthfulness of the complainant. The Crown agreed to withdraw the charges and our client entered into his third peace bond.

R. v. A.C. (2015)

Assaults

Case - Our client was charged with assaulting her boyfriend by punching and scratching his face. He was charged also. She was also charged with assaulting him the previous year and received a peace bond.

Result - Through advocating the sympathetic circumstances of our client's situation, the Judge agreed to save her from the imposition of a criminal record, despite the injuries that were caused. The Judge imposed an absolute discharge.

R. v. M.M. (2015)

Assaults

Case - Our clients were the father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband, charged with assaulting and threatening their daughter-in-law/wife. As a result of the charges, husband was not permitted to have any contact with his parents.

Result - Through strategic decisions, we first persuaded the Crown to allow our client's to have contact with each other. This was important as the husband was the caregiver for his aged parents. Secondly, we convinced the Crown to stay the charges against the father-in-law (the least serious allegations) in an effort to shorten what would have been a lengthy trial. Thirdly, during a Judicial Pre-trial shortly before the trial, we showed the Judge and the Crown that given the mother-in-law's serious medical condition and difficulty in moving around, it was unlikely she had poured a pot of hot oil on the complainant. This charge was withdrawn at the request of the Crown. Finally, on the eve of the trial, we presented the numerous inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence to the Crown, whom after consulting with their 'star' witness, agreed to withdraw the remaining charge against the husband.

R. v. S.S., A.S. & Y.S. (2015)

Thefts/Fraud/Robbery

Case - Our client was charged with having shoplifted $180.00 worth of items from the Bay. Our client was caught on surveillance video committing the offence.

Result - After extensive discussions with the Crown, we were able to secure a withdrawal of the charges. Our client made a charitable donation and participated in an educational seminar on the issue of theft.

R. v. T.T.

Thefts/Fraud/Robbery

Case - Our client was charged with pushing a kid at school and taking his iPod. Our client was also a student at the same school. The victim reported the incident to the principle and gave a general description of the suspect. The victim picked out our client from the year book and said he was the one that committed the crime.

Trial - It was established that the victim picked out our client from the year book because he heard a friend of his tell him that it could have been S.S. that did it. He looked through the year book and pointed to the picture above S.S.'s name. He admitted in court that he couldn't be sure that S.S. was the guy who took his iPod.

Result - The Court was not convinced that S.S. was the one that took the iPod. There were significant problems with respect to identity in the case. The charges were dismissed.

R. v. S.S.

Thefts/Fraud/Robbery

Case - Our clients were charged with a large scale fraud where it was alleged that they were defrauding a cheque cashing company that they were operating.

Result - Through a series of resolution meetings with the Crown's office, we were able that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Hence, the charges were all withdrawn.

R. v. S.L. & V.S.

Sexual Offences

Case - Our client was charged with having sexually assaulted his wife over a period of time. She only brought the allegations forward three months after she separated from her husband. The allegations were made when our client was in the process of obtaining sole custody of the children and was going to argue in court that their mother had abandoned the children and left to go to India.

Trial - The wife testified about the sexual assault. However, it became clear that she wasn't able to provide any details of the events and explain the delayed reporting. Also, it became clear that she had a lot of reasons to fabricate the charges.

Result - The Crown withdrew the charges after hearing the cross-examination by counsel for our client.

R. v. N.S.

Sexual Offences

Case - Our client along with two of his relatives were charged with all having sexually assaulted their 22 year old niece. The allegation involved inappropriate touching.

Trial - The evidence of the complainant was full of lies. It was shown that she and her boyfriend may have been planning to get the family members charged so that they could take revenge against them for opposing their future planned wedding. The boyfriend and the complainant's evidence were significantly in contradiction to one another. The complainant went to the Brick Warehouse store hours after the alleged sexual assault and purchased a stove (We had proof of the transaction as the Visa slip was signed by the complainant).

Result - The Court dismissed all charges against our client and his two relatives.

R. v. A.K.

Sexual Offences

Case - Our client was charged with having sexually assaulted a girl at a New Years house party. It was alleged the girl was highly intoxicated at the time. The complainant said that she woke up in the middle of the night in the shower having "nonconsensual" sex with our client. Our client always maintained his innocence. He volunteered his DNA and insisted that he never had sex with the complainant. Our client was the one that found the complainant crawling on the ground and helped drive her home that night.

Result - After providing the DNA sample and hiring a private investigator to question some of the other house guests at the party; we were able to show the Crown that our client was not the individual that was having sex with the complainant. Charges were withdrawn.

R. v. M.S.

Drugs

Case - Our client was charged with having possession of 20 grams of Marihuana. Our client readily admitted that he had possession of the drugs, but wanted us to do everything we could to try to win the case.

Trial - The Crown attempted to prove that the drugs were in fact Marihuana by relying upon a Certificate of Analysis as they commonly do. The Certificate was served upon our client's mother at our client's home. I brought to the attention of the Crown that service was flawed as our client never actually received the Certificate evidence. As a result the Crown decided to withdraw the charges against our client

R. v. V.J.

Drugs

Case - Our client was apprehended with a small quantity of Marihuana. He was a University Graduate and held a very responsible job. I brought to the attention of the Crown the details about our client and the fact that a Criminal Record would adversely affect his employment situation. The Crown agreed that upon the making of a charitable donation the charges would be withdrawn.

Result - Charges were withdrawn.

R. v. P.D.

Drugs

Case - The police had stopped our client's car because it had a loud muffler. The police officer became suspicious of our client as he appeared very nervous. The officer asked him if he could search the car. Our client felt he didn't have a choice and simply let the police search the vehicle. The police officer located $400.00 worth of cocaine and $150.00 worth of Marihuana.

Trial - It was argued that the police had no authority to search the vehicle. The consent that the police relied upon was not an informed consent. Our client was unfairly treated in the manner in which the vehicle was stopped and subsequently searched.

Result - The Court held that our client's Charter Rights had been violated and dismissed the charges.

R. v. T.S.

Other Offences

Case - Our client was charged with second degree murder, along with three other co-accused parties. A man was stabbed and killed during an intended robbery during a drug deal.

Result - We managed to convince a Superior Court and the Crown Attorney's office to agree to our client's release at a murder bail hearing. None of the others charged were released. Through extensive negotiations and pointing out the weaknesses in the Crown's case, our client's matter was resolved without having to go back and serve any more time in jail.

R. v. S.H. (2014)

Other Offences

Case - Our client was charged with criminal harassment and assault (x2) against his girlfriend. Our client maintained his innocence and we ultimately set a date for trial. The client had received two peace bonds in the past for similar types of offences. Based on his history and the complainant's views, the Crown initially refused to allow our client to enter into another peace bond.

Trial - At trial, we presented numerous photographic and documentary evidence to the Crown. This evidence cast serious doubt on the credibility and truthfulness of the complainant. The Crown agreed to withdraw the charges and our client entered into his third peace bond.

R. v. A.C. (2015)

Other Offences

Case- Our client's brother's ex-wife called the police to have him charged with harassment. The police refused to charge him. The complainant then went to court and filed a private complaint. The Justice of the Peace issued a summons for the charge of criminal harassment.

Result- We persuaded the Crown to withdraw the charge as it was not in the public interest to proceed.

R. v. J.S. (2015)