Drunken Behaviour In Public
1. Definition and Legal Context
Drunken behaviour in public generally refers to acts of intoxication that cause public disturbance, endanger public safety, or lead to disorderly conduct. The law aims to maintain public order and safety by regulating intoxicated behaviour, especially when it affects others.
2. Legal Principles
Public Intoxication: Being intoxicated in a public place may be an offence depending on the jurisdiction, especially if it causes nuisance, disorder, or danger.
Disorderly Conduct: Drunken behaviour often overlaps with disorderly conduct, such as fighting, shouting, or damaging property.
Criminal Liability: Intoxication does not excuse criminal acts; voluntary intoxication can sometimes aggravate the offence.
Preventive and Punitive Measures: Laws provide police powers to detain or disperse intoxicated persons to prevent harm.
3. Key Legal Issues
Whether intoxication alone amounts to an offence.
The extent to which intoxication affects the person’s criminal responsibility.
The balance between individual freedom and public safety.
Police powers and limits in controlling drunken behaviour.
Case Laws Explaining Drunken Behaviour in Public
1. R v. Majewski (1977) AC 443 (House of Lords, UK)
Facts: The defendant was heavily intoxicated and assaulted several people.
Issue: Can voluntary intoxication be used as a defence for crimes involving basic intent?
Holding: Voluntary intoxication is not a defence to crimes of basic intent like assault. The court held that intoxication is reckless behaviour itself and does not excuse the offence.
Significance: This case establishes that drunkenness does not absolve criminal liability for violent or disorderly conduct in public.
2. DPP v. Majewski (1976)
Facts: Similar to above, Majewski was charged with assault while intoxicated.
Holding: Intoxication cannot be a defence for crimes involving reckless conduct.
Explanation: The ruling reinforced that voluntary drunkenness cannot be used to escape liability for offences that require only recklessness.
3. R v. Heard (2007) EWCA Crim 125
Facts: The defendant was drunk and assaulted a police officer.
Issue: Whether intoxication reduces the mens rea for assault.
Holding: Intoxication does not negate recklessness; therefore, drunken assault is still punishable.
Significance: Confirmed that public drunkenness accompanied by violent acts holds criminal responsibility.
4. People v. Penman, 99 Cal. App. 4th 943 (2002)
Facts: The defendant was intoxicated in public and charged with disorderly conduct.
Issue: Can intoxication be a mitigating or aggravating factor in public disorder?
Holding: The court ruled intoxication does not excuse disruptive behaviour in public.
Significance: Reiterated the state's interest in controlling public disorder regardless of intoxication.
5. R v. O’Grady [1987] QB 995 (Court of Appeal, UK)
Facts: The defendant, intoxicated, mistakenly believed he was under attack and used force.
Issue: Can mistaken self-defence caused by intoxication be a defence?
Holding: The court held that a mistake due to intoxication is not a valid defence.
Importance: Intoxication cannot justify violent behaviour in public even if perceived as self-defence.
6. R v. Kingston (1994) 3 WLR 696
Facts: The defendant was unknowingly drugged and committed an offence while intoxicated.
Issue: Is involuntary intoxication a defence?
Holding: Involuntary intoxication can be a defence if it negates mens rea.
Relevance: Contrasts with voluntary intoxication; the law is stricter on those who voluntarily consume intoxicants.
Summary
Courts generally hold individuals responsible for drunken behaviour causing public disorder.
Voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal acts such as assault or disorderly conduct.
Mistakes or reduced capacity caused by drunkenness are usually not accepted as valid defences.
Involuntary intoxication is an exception but rarely applies.
The state has wide powers to regulate drunken behaviour in public to maintain order.
RELATED Blog
0 comments