The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle without a valid contract of automobile insurance contrary to the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act and driving while suspended contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.
The defendant had constructed a gasoline-powered motorized bicycle and argued it did not fall within the legal definition of a motor vehicle.
The court found that the gasoline-powered motorized bicycle met the statutory definition of a motor-assisted bicycle and therefore constituted a motor vehicle.
The defendant's due diligence defence failed because he did not exercise reasonable care in investigating the legal status of his vehicle, relying instead on selective reading of government guidelines and passive ignorance of his legal obligations.
The court convicted the defendant on both charges.
