Judges to call shots on serving 'drunks'

Given the sometimes disturbing habits of the judiciary, it is interesting that - sober as a judge - one of our main epithets for sobriety should involve the bench. But eventually, these will be the very people who will decide whether a person is "drunk" or not.

One of the very first things new entrants to the trade learn about their legal responsibilities is that you must not serve someone who is drunk. But no-one ever explains what that means, because there is no legal definition: it is a "popularly-accepted term", to use the phrase of one judge, but it covers a multi-tude of sins and is very difficult to determine exactly.

It does not mean "over the legal limit for driving", even though we use the term "drunk driving" to describe it.

Responsibility for ensuring a person is fit to drive within the law rests with the individual, not the licensee. You can dissuade or deter a person from driving home, but as a leading case has shown, the licensee is not vicar-iously liable for what the driver does if he is over that limit, unless there are very special circumstances.

What it means is that if someone walks up to the bar and you can see the person has had too much, you must not serve that individual. If you serve any more alcohol to someone who "appears to be drunk", you run the risk of prosecution.

You also risk a degree of aggression at the same time, because people in that state may not agree that they have had enough. But refuse them you must.

What interests me, under the new licensing laws, is how the offence will be prosecuted. Because the word "knowingly" has been

inserted in the relevant section, in front of the phrase "sells or attempts to sell". This means the prosecution has to show that the

licensee or member of staff must have

known that the person was drunk from his or her appearance or disposition, or possibly from the amount of drink that had already been served to that individual.

A person may, of course, be very drunk and not show immediate indications. But if you have served him six large whiskies in the

previous hour, you may form the opinion

that he might be too drunk to appreciate

the seventh.

The most likely scenario, of course, is that the police enter premises, which are still serving and several of the people in the bar are clearly drunk and have drinks in front of

them. There may also be a degree of disorder, which might render the licensee liable to a separate prosecution.

The evidence that the police might then bring forward would include the state of individuals (speech slurred, unable to stand up properly, glazed eyes etc) to show that the bar staff have turned a blind eye to the condition of their customers.

But in many cases, it will be a value judgement. A happy party of revellers on a Friday night, perhaps celebrating a promotion or a birthday, might not be committing disorder, but will be loud and raucous and have put away a number of drinks. There may come a point when a member of that party seeks another drink and you can see they are not

in control.

That is when the law obliges you to refuse service, involving another member of staff if necessary. You do not want an on-the-spot fine or even worse, loss or suspension of the licence, for serving one too many.