If you pick apart the latest Home Office initiative on the issue of penalty notices for selling to someone who is drunk, it does not make too much sense.
First thing: it is already an offence under the Licensing Act. What is the point, when you have an offence on the statute book, of compounding it, unless, as I suspect, it is just a bit of sabre-rattling against the licen-sed trade?
Also, it is a very difficult decision to make. According to Home Office minister Hazel Blears, it will be up to the police "to decide exactly what evidence was required in order to issue a fine". Really? So we now have the police deciding not only guilt or innocence, which used to be a matter for the courts, but also what evidence will be acceptable to them.
So someone being a little boisterous, or rowdy on a good night out, or spilling his drink, could render the barman liable to a fine for serving them. There is no mention of whether the police actually have to see the service of drink there has been talk of asking an arrested drunk where he had his last drink and then fining the relevant landlord. So it could be that circumstantial evidence will be allowed (by the police).
What worries me is that this idea of "another option" to prosecution does indeed smack of the police state which none of us including, it must be said, the police really wants. If it is easier to slap instant fines on us, why bother with the courts at all? Surely there is no smoke without fire? If the police say someone is guilty, then they must be. It stands to reason.
That scenario is unfair and unworkable. People get drunk in different ways, for different reasons and at different levels of anti-social behaviour. I am sure that the police will not use this new power in an arbitrary way, but it could be used to put pressure on certain outlets and there have been (rare) stories in the past of venues being targeted by the police, particularly after a failure in court.
Incidentally, so important was this new initiative that the Home Office could not find the relevant statutory instrument the day after it was brought into effect. It turned out that the stationery office had failed to publish it! Let's hope that no-one was ticketed on the first day they might be able to get off on a technicality!