Drunk and disorderly

Our man in Havana

For a charge of Drunk and disorderly to succeed is it nessasary to establish the intoxication of the accused? How would this normally be established?

Gobán Saor

Bond-007 wrote:

........ How would this normally be estabhlished?

If he couldn't spell properly:D

civdef

I can only speak from experience of English law, but I don't think there's a huge difference here?

The arresting officer forms an opinion as to whether the person getting locked up is intoxicated - usually of the form "smelt of intoxicating liquor, was unsteady on their feet, speech slurred, eyes glazed".

This is then considered as "expert evidence", so to speak in court.

Bond-007

Bond-007 wrote:

For a charge of Drunk and disorderly to succeed is it nessasary to establish the intoxication of the accused? How would this normally be established?

The time of the offence, the nature of the offence (swinging off a tree, throwing a traffic cone, shouting around the town), the appearance of the accused and the reaction of the accused when questioned.

Our man in Havana

What if the accused was never stopped and questioned, let alone arrested, just summons served? Purely hypothecial situation of course.

Bond-007

Bond-007 wrote:

What if the accused was never stopped and questioned, let alone arrested, just summons served? Purely hypothecial situation of course.

If the accused was swinging from a tree or p*ssing against a shop window or shouting abuse around the town, it might be worse to say one was stone cold sober and that'snormal behaviour...

numorouno

Bond-007 wrote:

What if the accused was never stopped and questioned, let alone arrested, just summons served? Purely hypothecial situation of course.

dont think you can be summmonsed if not arrested or brought home by the guards because if your intoxicated to "such an extent to be a danger to yourself and other" how can you be allowed to walk home or go on your way of your own accord?

civdef

There's a difference between being "drunk and disorderly" and "drunk and incapable".

Turner

Not in the eyes of the law here.

Its covered under the public order act.

Section 4 Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 -Intoxicated to such an extent to give rise to reasonable apprehension that you would constitute a danger to yourself and to others.


What i dont understand is that when people are charged also with section 8 of the same act they do not contest it.

How can you be asked to desist in your behaviour and move on when it is clear that you are so drunk "that you would constitute a danger to yourself and to others"

Eru

Chief--- wrote:

Not in the eyes of the law here.

Its covered under the public order act.

Section 4 Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 -Intoxicated to such an extent to give rise to reasonable apprehension that you would constitute a danger to yourself and to others.


What i dont understand is that when people are charged also with section 8 of the same act they do not contest it.

How can you be asked to desist in your behaviour and move on when it is clear that you are so drunk "that you would constitute a danger to yourself and to others"

You cant, we are not supposed to charge people with S4 and S8 together, saw this the other day as it happens. Couldnt believe they went guilty.

I also think theres a case for S4 and S24 as well.

Oh and I also agree that a summons makes no sense for this offence unless you were 10 yards from home and they walked you or you were allowed sober up in a cell then released for summons but if they didnt even approach you? That makes no sense.

Turner

If the gardai were surrounded and attacked and had to pull out..but knew their attackers, a summons along with other offences, obstruction assault section 6 would be sufficient.

This happens regularly, mostly in council estates where the sight of anybody getting arrested brings every scumbag out of the bushes willing to attack the gardai.


However obstruction is an arrestable offence, so the gardai could go to their attackers homes early in the morning and arrest. But in any case a file would be prepared and summons applied for.

Eru

True true, dont think that applies here though.

focusing

If they didn't question you, how did they get your address and how could they identify you in court??

Sounds like someone gave someone else's address. Unless they were so drunk they couldn't remember the Gardai talking to them!!

The answer to the initial question is that in s.4 intoxication in a public place Garda has to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the accused was

(i) under the intoxicating influence of any alcoholic drink, drug, solvent or other substance or a combination of substances
(ii) to such an extent as would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that he might endanger himself or any other person in his vicinity
(iii) they were present in any public place at the time

So they have to prove actual intoxication.

Are you sure it's section 4 on the summons?

Fine's only €127 max, so hardly worth worrying about.

(P.S. Intoxication is not a defence to this charge, as I once suggested to a friend facing a section 4 trial!)

Eru

focusing wrote:

If they didn't question you, how did they get your address and how could they identify you in court??

Possible If they knew him already

focusing

Hard to prove each of the elements of the offence if you didn't at least talk briefly to the person.

You'd have to be looking at a very unusual situation.

Eru

focusing wrote:

Hard to prove each of the elements of the offence if you didn't at least talk briefly to the person.

You'd have to be looking at a very unusual situation.

Absolutely, not something you would normally associate with a summons.

focusing

I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the accused doesn't remember the Gardai talking to them because of their intoxication.

So they'd be surprised to see the summons come through the door, would claim they were not talked to and then end up embarrassed by the Garda testimony about their antics.

Has anyone here seen any cases like that?

Eru

focusing wrote:

I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the accused doesn't remember the Gardai talking to them because of their intoxication.

So they'd be surprised to see the summons come through the door, would claim they were not talked to and then end up embarrassed by the Garda testimony about their antics.

Has anyone here seen any cases like that?

Ha! Yeah, about once a week on average.

Eyebrows18

What happens if the person was arrested for being drunk and disorderly but was not ever in danger to themselves or anyone else, the person in question then has no leg to stand on or what is the case when summoned??

cushtac

Eyebrows18 wrote: »

What happens if the person was arrested for being drunk and disorderly but was not ever in danger to themselves or anyone else, the person in question then has no leg to stand on or what is the case when summoned??

Plead not guilty & argue it in court.

Victor

Eyebrows18 wrote: »

What happens if the person was arrested for being drunk and disorderly but was not ever in danger to themselves or anyone else, the person in question then has no leg to stand on or what is the case when summoned??

Can you give an example? Read the phrasing again:

Chief--- wrote: »

Section 4 Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 -Intoxicated to such an extent to give rise to reasonable apprehension that you would constitute a danger to yourself and to others.

sauso

What about someone who was brought to the Garda station to sober up and was dropped home by the Gardai but given no papers or summons etc. How long before the person could possibly be charged or is it likely they were brought to the cell for their own safety and never charged?