A Regina man convicted of exposing himself in public during an incident in a Regina shopping mall parking lot in 2020 has had his appeal denied.
In his argument, Byron Harpold claimed the trial judge made an error when they classified his vehicle as a “public place.”
The charge stemmed from an incident on June 23, 2020 which saw a Regina police officer witness Harpold exposing himself in the driver’s seat of a vehicle in the parking lot of a shopping mall in north Regina.
At the time, Harpold was bound by a prohibition order that required him to keep the peace, be of good behaviour and not attend certain public areas where children may be present.
Following a visit from the high-risk offender unit in June, police became concerned that Harpold was violating his conditions.
A search of his home was performed on June 23, and officers with the city’s vice unit were instructed to follow him.
The incident occurred later that day – with Harpold being charged on June 24 with committing an indecent act by wilfully masturbating in a public place and breaching his probation.
The crux of the debate was the definition of a “public place.” The Crown argued that the location of Harpold’s vehicle – in a parking lot with other vehicles and members of the public entering and exiting the mall nearby – was without a doubt in a public place.
In his defence, Harpold argued that in some cases vehicles can act as homes for individuals and for a vehicle to be considered a public place – the public is required to have physical access to it – not mere visual access.
The trial judge found that the constable that observed Harpold did so “in a manner consistent with a member of the public” as she walked by his vehicle and glanced inside.
The judge also found that Harpold made little effort to conceal his actions, noting that his vehicle was parked in a public space in circumstances where it was likely that he would be seen acting indecently.
The Court of Appeal, referencing various precedents – found that the trial judge adopted the correct legal framework for determining what is and isn’t a public place.
“Given all of this, it is my opinion that it was not one single factor but, rather, the circumstances as a whole that led the trial judge to conclude that he was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Harpold’s indecent act had been committed in a public place,” Justice J.A. Drennan wrote in her decision.
“To conclude, I see no error in the trial judge’s interpretation and application of the term “public place” in the context of the matter at hand. I would therefore dismiss Mr. Harpold’s appeal.”
