What worried me about the definition was the interpretation of the test. There is well-established experience in the courts that where there is a test – in this case a reasonable apprehension – somebody has to adjudge and conclude that in his or her considered view a person is drunk. The question then arises what does it mean for a person to be drunk. It could be argued to mean that a person sleeping benignly in a corner, having consumed two gallons of porter, is not drunk under the terms of legislation. There is a problem. While I accept the Minster's argument on the wording of the amendment, the evidence of a garda in court could be stitched up by a smart member of the legal profession. I am more worried by this aspect.