The High Court says they were “Hammered”!

BY Hearsay

373 Views

In Joslyn v Berryman [2003] HCA 34; 214 CLR 552; 198 ALR 137; 77 ALJR 1233 (18 June 2003) – the well-known High Court decision relating to contributory negligence – the High Court considered the term “drunk”, with the transcript recording the following exchange between the Court and Counsel for the Appellant (S122/2002) Mr D F Jackson QC:

CALLINAN J

Mr Jackson, it seems to me that clearly the people at the party, including Ms Joslyn and Mr Berryman, went out with the intention of getting drunk.

MR JACKSON

It would be a big night, your Honour, big night.

CALLINAN J

With the intention of getting drunk and they fulfilled that intention.

MR JACKSON

Well, your Honour, young people sometimes – – –

KIRBY J

I just think “drunk” is a label and I am a little worried about – it is not necessary to put that label. It is just that they were sufficiently affected by alcohol to affect their capacity to drive.

MR JACKSON

Yes.

KIRBY J

“A drunk” has all sorts of baggage with it.

HAYNE J

Perhaps “hammered” is the more modern expression.

MR JACKSON

or “well and truly hammered”.

MR JACKSON

I am indebted to your Honour.

KIRBY J

I do not know any of these expressions.

McHUGH J

No, no. Justice Hayne must live a very different life to the sort of life we lead.

KIRBY J

I have never heard that word “hammered” before, never. Not before this very minute.”

A link to the case is here.