Doran v Director of Public Prosecutions; Brunton v Director of Public Prosecutions

The plaintiffs, Doran and Brunton, appealed against their convictions of affray, which arose from their involvement in a violent altercation. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The convictions stemmed from an incident where the plaintiffs and others were involved in a physical confrontation that resulted in serious injuries to two other individuals. The primary issue for the court was to determine whether the plaintiffs' actions were justified as self-defence, particularly in light of their intoxication at the time of the incident. The court was required to assess the reasonableness of the plaintiffs' actions from their perspective, considering their state of intoxication, against an objective standard of reasonableness.

The court examined the statutory provisions defining the offence of affray and the principles of self-defence as recognised in Australian criminal law. The plaintiffs argued that their intoxication should be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of their actions. However, the court held that the statutory provisions for affray do not permit a subjective assessment of reasonableness based on the defendant's intoxication. Instead, the court must apply an objective test, considering what a sober and reasonable person in the same circumstances would have done. The court concluded that the trial judge had correctly applied the objective test and had not erred in law by not considering the plaintiffs' intoxication in assessing the reasonableness of their actions.

In light of the above, the court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. The convictions of Doran and Brunton for the offence of affray were upheld. The reasoning and application of the objective test by the trial judge were affirmed, and no legal error was identified in the process that led to the convictions. The court's decision reinforced the principle that intoxication is not a valid consideration in the objective assessment of reasonableness required by the law of self-defence in the context of the offence of affray.