A Regina Provincial Court judge has found a Regina man not guilty of impaired driving-related charges, stating it’s unclear whether Gary W. Rookes’ moped was legally functioning as a motor vehicle on the night in question.
According to the May decision posted online recently, Rookes, 57, was pulled over on Feb. 26, 2010, by a member of the Regina Police Service after the officer saw the moped — described as a GiO 500-watt E-scooter — go through a red light at the intersection of Saskatchewan Drive and Broad Street at about 11:20 p.m. The stop led to charges of impaired operation of a motor vehicle and refusal to provide a breath sample.
The case went to trial, following which Judge Murray Hinds found there was conflicting evidence as to whether Rookes’ moped was, in fact, a motor vehicle at the time of the incident. Hinds noted that in cases where a judge can’t decide who to believe, a judge has to acquit.
“In this case after careful consideration of all the evidence, I am unable to decide whom to believe as to (1) whether there were pedals on the GiO bike (2) whether Mr. Rookes was pedalling his GiO bike as his sole means of propulsion and (3) whether the electric engine was operable on February 26, 2010,” Hinds wrote in his decision from May 4. “As a result I am of the view that the Crown has failed to prove that Mr. Rookes was operating a motor vehicle on the evening of February 26, 2010.”
During trial, court heard from police involved in the case and Rookes himself.
Rookes, represented by defence lawyer Rod Simaluk, admitted to having had two or three beer earlier in the day before heading for home on his GiO cycle. He said that at the time, the engine — an electric battery-charged motor — was not working, even supplying a receipt from a subsequent date that he claimed was for the motor repair. Rookes insisted he had to pedal the moped at the time.
The police officer who testified, Const. Tyler Bacon, told the court he witnessed Rookes dragging his feet along the ground prior to the vehicle stop.
“Constable Bacon testified that after Mr. Rookes stopped the moped, he appeared to steady himself, dismounted the moped and stumbled backwards toward a wall adjacent to the roadway ...,” Hinds wrote. “Constable Bacon testified that he observed Mr. Rookes to stumble and sway from side to side as he walked to the police vehicle. He also testified that once Mr. Rookes reached the police vehicle he appeared to steady himself against it.”
After Rookes blew a fail on the roadside screening device, Bacon took the man back to police headquarters for a breathalyzer reading. Another officer tasked with operating the device told the court Rookes displayed several signs and symptoms of impairment, including a strong smell of alcohol, slurred speech and glassy, watery eyes. Const. Grant Campbell testified Rookes failed to provide a proper breath sample and was subsequently charged.
Hinds noted that while Bacon said the pedals on the moped appeared to have been removed, Rookes testified that wasn’t the case. Hinds said while he didn’t buy all of Rookes’ testimony, he was still left in a doubt on that point, indicating photographs of the moped at the time would have helpful. He also said police reports didn’t indicate whether the moped’s motor was operational at the time.
According to the May decision posted online recently, Rookes, 57, was pulled over on Feb. 26, 2010, by a member of the Regina Police Service after the officer saw the moped — described as a GiO 500-watt E-scooter — go through a red light at the intersection of Saskatchewan Drive and Broad Street at about 11:20 p.m. The stop led to charges of impaired operation of a motor vehicle and refusal to provide a breath sample.
The case went to trial, following which Judge Murray Hinds found there was conflicting evidence as to whether Rookes’ moped was, in fact, a motor vehicle at the time of the incident. Hinds noted that in cases where a judge can’t decide who to believe, a judge has to acquit.
“In this case after careful consideration of all the evidence, I am unable to decide whom to believe as to (1) whether there were pedals on the GiO bike (2) whether Mr. Rookes was pedalling his GiO bike as his sole means of propulsion and (3) whether the electric engine was operable on February 26, 2010,” Hinds wrote in his decision from May 4. “As a result I am of the view that the Crown has failed to prove that Mr. Rookes was operating a motor vehicle on the evening of February 26, 2010.”
During trial, court heard from police involved in the case and Rookes himself.
Rookes, represented by defence lawyer Rod Simaluk, admitted to having had two or three beer earlier in the day before heading for home on his GiO cycle. He said that at the time, the engine — an electric battery-charged motor — was not working, even supplying a receipt from a subsequent date that he claimed was for the motor repair. Rookes insisted he had to pedal the moped at the time.
The police officer who testified, Const. Tyler Bacon, told the court he witnessed Rookes dragging his feet along the ground prior to the vehicle stop.
“Constable Bacon testified that after Mr. Rookes stopped the moped, he appeared to steady himself, dismounted the moped and stumbled backwards toward a wall adjacent to the roadway ...,” Hinds wrote. “Constable Bacon testified that he observed Mr. Rookes to stumble and sway from side to side as he walked to the police vehicle. He also testified that once Mr. Rookes reached the police vehicle he appeared to steady himself against it.”
After Rookes blew a fail on the roadside screening device, Bacon took the man back to police headquarters for a breathalyzer reading. Another officer tasked with operating the device told the court Rookes displayed several signs and symptoms of impairment, including a strong smell of alcohol, slurred speech and glassy, watery eyes. Const. Grant Campbell testified Rookes failed to provide a proper breath sample and was subsequently charged.
Hinds noted that while Bacon said the pedals on the moped appeared to have been removed, Rookes testified that wasn’t the case. Hinds said while he didn’t buy all of Rookes’ testimony, he was still left in a doubt on that point, indicating photographs of the moped at the time would have helpful. He also said police reports didn’t indicate whether the moped’s motor was operational at the time.
