The case

Noa Nadruka, a player for the successful ACT Rugby club Canberra Raiders, was charged with assault. An ACT magistrate heard that Nadruka, following a bout of heavy drinking, allegedly assaulted two women outside a Canberra night-club. Nothing unusual about that, you might say – if anything, it bears an unfortunate resemblance to any number of previous unsavoury episodes involving inebriated sportsmen. But in this case there’s a twist in the tail – despite evidence to substantiate the charge, the footballer was acquitted!

The facts

The magistrate heard evidence that Nadruka had been drinking for 11 hours before the incident, so it is not surprising that Nadruka claimed to have no memory of the alleged assault (or probably anything else that happened that day!). Especially when the amount of alcohol he consumed is equivalent to about 50 pots of beer!

The defence

Nadruka raised the so-called "drunk’s defence". This means he claimed to have been so drunk that he did not know what he was doing when he allegedly assaulted the women, and should therefore not be responsible for his actions. This is not as absurd as it seems, because it is based on the established principle of criminal law that all elements (or parts) of a crime have to be proved before a defendant can be found guilty. And one of those elements is "intent".

The law

In a charge like assault, the prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the offence AND intended to commit it. In 1980 the High Court decided that evidence of drunkenness could be used by a defendant to show that they did not have the proper intent – it was therefore open to Nadruka to claim they he was so affected by alcohol that he did not have the necessary intent. Obviously you must have consumed an enormous amount of alcohol to use this defence.

This is the position under the common law – that is, laws that are made by judges, as opposed to legislation that is passed by Parliaments. Some States have legislated to abolish this common law defence, although Victoria, ACT and South Australia have not done this.

In the United Kingdom the highest courts have refused to endorse this defence because they say it is not in the best interests of the public. In Canada, a 1995 law banned the use of extreme drunkenness as a defence to violent crimes, a response to a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that was similar to the High Court’s decision in Australia. Canadian Justice Minister Allan Rock, in a comment that probably makes sense to most fair-minded people, said at the time, "we wanted to send a message that people have to be held responsible for their criminal conduct even if they intoxicate themselves voluntarily."

Our verdict

Everyone knows that excessive drinking affects their behaviour. Getting very drunk and committing a crime is defensible if strict legal principles are applied, which is what the High Court has said – but in the real world, where adults are supposed to take responsibility for their actions, it seems sensible that the law should reflect these basic principles of decent behaviour.

Read this: The legal information contained above is intended to be general information about the law. It is not a substitute for legal and other professional advice. Lawscape Communications P/L does not accept responsibility for loss to any person, who either acts or does not act because of this information.

Want us to tell you when we put out another news item?