[1969-1982] NLR (D) 51

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAURU

Criminal Appeal No 11 of 1976

Langi Tulok Harris

v.

The Republic

22nd October, 1976.

Offensive behaviour - section 5 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1967 - behaviour offensive to a reasonable person.

Offensive behaviour - husband's conduct towards wife - marital relationship affords no defence.

Appeal against conviction for offensive behaviour in a dwelling house contrary of section 5 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1967. The appellant went home drunk, swore at his wife, insulted her and caused a commotion in the house.

Held: Behaviour is offensive for the purposes of section 5 if it would offend a reasonable, and a not unduly sensitive, person. The fact that the behaviour is directed towards the accused person's wife affords no defence; a wife is not to be expected to tolerate abuse and insults which other reasonable persons would not tolerate.

K. Aroi for the appellant.
D. Gioura for the respondent.

Thompson CJ.:

Offensive behaviour means behaviour which causes offence and which is such that a reasonable person would be offended by it. It is not enough that a particularly sensitive person was offended unless the intent to offend that person is proved. When that intent is not proved, the conduct must be such that a reasonable person would be offended by it.

In this case, on the appellant's own admission, he went home drunk and there pushed and swore at his wife; she was so offended that she called the police. Would a reasonable person have been offended? Mr. Aroi has submitted, in effect, that a reasonable wife should not be offended and that such conduct is part and parcel of the normal incidents of matrimonial life.

Possibly at some times in the past the rights of wives in relation to their husbands have been so limited that reasonable Dives were expected to tolerate such conduct. In these more civilised times that is no longer the case. A man has no more right to go home drunk and swear at his wife and insult her, than he has to swear at persons he meets in the street on the way home. Of course, if there is a two-sided quarrel, other considerations may arise. But that is not the case here.

Mr. Aroi has fleetingly referred to possible absence of intent resulting from drunkenness. Drunkenness affords no excuse for what was clearly deliberate conduct. I refer to section 28 of the Criminal Code of Queensland (adopted) and to the position at common law as confirmed recently by the House of Lords in Majewski's case.

Accordingly, as the facts proved constituted the offence charged, the appeal is dismissed.