Issue
The issue is about drinking in a car, which is parked in a public place (as defined in The Summary Offences Act 1966). The simple answer is that Doug is criminally liable for drinking in his car, which is parked in the library car-park. As under The Summary Offences Act drinking in a public place is prohibited, with the definition of public place too be found in section 3 of The Summary Offences Act 1966.
Legislation
The Summary Offences act 1966 provides the laws regarding consumption of alcohol in public place’s, public drunkenness and most importantly the definition of “public place” as seen in the eyes of the law. The definition of public place is and open definition, this allows the courts too read into the legislation should such
…show more content…
a hurdle arise where it is not specifically defined in the legislation, however in this definition there is no mention of whether a vehicle is public place or private property when parked in a public location. Upon further investigation “Bourke’s Criminal Law VIC” commentary was revealed and gave a wider definition and comments specifically on Vehicles in Public places.
Paragraph 28,055.10.10 of Bourke’s Criminal Law Vic “The general rule is that an offence in a vehicle on a street, whether the vehicle is a public vehicle or not, is an offence in that street.” This definition from Bourke’s Criminal Law Victoria gives a precise and clear information regarding the vehicles in public places. It States that the courts have held repeatedly that a vehicle is public place when parked in a public place.
In sections 13 and 14 of The Summary Offences Act 1966 we find the legislation regarding public intoxication. The legislation states that “any person found drunk in a public place shall be guilty of an offence.” It also states that “any person found drunk and disorderly in a public place shall be guilty of an offence.”
…show more content…
Cases In 1971 there is the well known case of McKenzie v Stratton. This case involved the defendant being found drunk in a taxi, which was parked in a car park in Brunswick outside of Brunswick police station. The man was heavily intoxicated and thus was taken in on the basis that he was drunk in a public place. In court the Magistrate found that the Taxi was not public place under the definition of public place in the Summary Offences Act 1966 and dismissed the prosecutions case. The case was taken to the supreme court and was heard by Nelson J. The judge found that the Magistrate had misdirected himself and that the vehicle (taxi) was in-fact Public place when parked in public place. A similar case appeared a year later, the case of Mansfield v Kelly; Langley v Bull.
Kelly and Bull were found drunk in the front seat of a car that had just been pulled over by police officers Mansfield and Langley. They were considered to be drunk and when they were seen in the magistrates’ court for their hearing the court decided that the car was not public place and thus fell in favour of Kelly and Bull. However when these cases were heard again in the Victorian Supreme Court Justice Newton overturned the idea that “the car was not public place”, instead stating that it was parked in the public place, making it a public place. This case used the precedent which had been set by the McKenzie v Stratton
case. In both cases it appears that the judges when heard on appeal drew the same conclusion that a car parked in public place is public place. Again in both cases they refer to the drunk and intoxicated nature of the defendants, this breaches sections 13 and 14 of the Summary Offences Act 1966. Application to the facts In Douglas’s case we can see that he was intoxicated, this brings inn sections 13 and 14 of the Summary Offences act 1966, where the legislation holds that being drunk and/ or disorderly in a public place is a criminal offence. IN this particular case it was necessary to define Public place as the main question is whether or not the car/vehicle Douglas was sitting in was in-fact private property or public place. It has been held in the cases of Mckenzie v Stratton and in Mansfield v Kelly; Langley v Bull that being in a car/vehicle while intoxicated which is parked in a public place is in-fact public place and does not constitute private property. These two above cases could be used as precedents in reference to Doug’s case. With this being the case, whether or not being seated in the front or back would not matter, as the vehicle as a whole is regarded as public place and thus being seated in the front or the back of a vehicle has no affect on the final outcome. The court could apply both these cases (Mansfield v Kelly; Kelly v Bull and McKenzie v Stratton) as their precedents due too the similarity of facts between them. Conclusion Douglas is criminally liable for drinking in the car parked in the carpark. The Summary Offences Act 1966 and the cases of Mansfield v Kelly; Kelly v Bull and McKenzie v Stratton all point towards him breaking the law. The intoxication of Douglas while in a public place (‘public place’ as defined in The Summary Offences act 1966 s 3) is the law broken and the car as proven in the cases is considered public place.
They referred the principles in Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61. The court disagreed, saying the appellant did not provide reasonable protection against intoxicated, unruly or violent customers whom they served alcohol.
This case was brought to the Supreme Court with Plessey’s argument being that his 13th and 14th Amendments was being violated. But Louisiana argued that the 14th Amendment states that everyone is to be treated equally and that is exactly what happened. They said that the cars were separate but equal and that abided by the Constitution while keeping the Jim Crow laws. The Supreme Court decided that no law was violated and took the state’s side. The Court upheld Plessey’s conviction, and ruled that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to “equal facilities,” not the “same facilities.” In this ruling, the Supreme Court created the principle of “separate but equal,”(“Judicial Review”,
The anti-social behaviour act was made in 2003. The reason for why this was made was to make the rules of anti-social behaviour better and work more efficient also to do the same with the fixed penalty notices. The rules of this act is no one that is under the age of 16 is allowed to buy spray paint due to graffiti on private properties, no group of teenagers are allowed to do anything wrong to the public and also no public drunkenness which can lead to people disturbing the peace. An example for this could be the ASBO’s.
Since its discovery, alcohol has long been synonymous with parties and general rowdiness. It should come as no surprise that the same holds true during the Victorian Era in England. The Victorian era was a time of peace and prosperity for much of Britain, the emergence of industrialism and the further development of British colonies led to a middle-class to distinguish itself. Naturally leisurely activities emerged and the British people soon found themselves new and exciting ways to enjoy the prosperity of Britain. Perhaps the most prominent leisurely activity was the consumption of alcohol at not only drinking halls but also sporting events and casual meals. As drinking became more prevalent those who disapproved of the rowdy drunkards started to form coalitions. Britain soon underwent a temperance movement that looked to stop public drunkenness and general misconduct under the influence of alcohol. Eventually this would lead to a teetotalism movement that wanted to ban alcohol entirely.
Main, Carla T. “Underage Drinking and the Drinking Age.” Policy Review. June/July 2009: 33-46. Wilson OmniFile Full Text Mega Edition. Web. 3 Mar. 2010.
We all are highly aware that with everything there are pros as well as cons. Status offense laws have numerous aspects that one may consider beneficial not to mention those things that are leased favored pertaining to status offense laws. In today’s society juveniles in need of care or supervision are referred to as status offenders. Children who have been classified as neglected or dependent can be placed in the possession of the State welfare programs. Status offenses are merely intentional acts committed by an individual who is incorrigible. Examples of an act of the nature would be a runaway, skipping school, and underage consumption of alcohol. An act of such wouldn’t be considered a crime had it been committed by an adult. A youth status as a minor considers them to
Spence, F. S. The Facts of the Case: A Summary of The Most Important Evidence And Argument Presented in the Report of The Royal Commission On The Liquor Traffic. Toronto: Newton & Treloar, 1973. (Eastern Conneticut State University HV5080.C2D8 1973)
Although underage drinkers represent only around ten percent of all motorists, they are involved in 17% of all drinking while driving fatalities. Since the Drinking Age Act of 1984, the number of drunk driving fatalities has declined. However, it is still a major issue especially amongst the youngest of motorists. Although drunk driving, as a whole is an issue, teenage drunk
One July day in St. Petersburg, a poor young man slips out of his apartment and goes out. He is Rodion Romanych Raskolnikov, a former student, and he is preoccupied with something. He arrives at the apartment of Alyona Ivanovna, a pawnbroker, where he is attempting a trial of the unknown deed obsessing him.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the ground that Marsh remained binding authority. According to R v Hughes, an offence under 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act required proof that it was the appellant’s fault which contributed to the death of the victim. In the case, it was concluded that Mr Taylor’s driving was not at fault. In Williams, the offence charged was the same as R v Hughes and the trial judge concluded that the fault was not a component of the offence. This ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal decided to apply Marsh and hence overturned the ruling of
The Law Commission in its Report which was published in 1995 [no-229] concluded that the law was satisfactory and not in need of reform. Nevertheless now it lists intoxication as one of its project for reform in second report which published in 2007 and consequently in third report published in 2009.
Guy uses alcohol as an example to argue that Mid-Victorian authors ‘tended to see drunkenness as a form of personal immorality’ going further to suggest that there was a failure to connect these social issues ‘with other problems such as poverty and unemployment’ . In essence, this argument generalises an idea that the view on recreational evils such as alcoholic and drug abuse Victorians is a personal rather than a social problem. Whilst this may be the case on a majority scale, Guy fails to provide any evidence of Victorians that fail to recognise the apparently updated idea that drug and alcohol abuse is closely related to the social issues more prevalent in the Condition of England
How can the government force patrons onto the streets at 1:30am and expect there to not be issues? A 1:30am last entry and 3am last drinks is the current “bandaid” solution the Australian government believes will curb the amount of alcohol fuelled violence, one punch attacks mainly, plaguing the city nightlife.
In Intro to Criminal Justice class, I had the opportunity to learn about the Criminal Justice System more thoroughly. I learned that there are three components that make up the Criminal Justice System such as the courts, law enforcement, and corrections. Each component has its own role in making sure the the Criminal Justice System is functioning properly. If one of these components are not efficient the Criminal Justice system will not be as strong as it could be.
Section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (thereafter, the “Act”) reads as follows, “Any person who consumes or uses any substance which impairs his or her faculties to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her acts or to act in accordance with that appreciation, while knowing that such substance has that effect, and who while such faculties are thus impaired commits any act prohibited by law under any penalty, but is not criminally liable because his or her faculties were impaired as aforesaid, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to the penalty which may be imposed in respect of the commission of that