A man who ended up in court after wearing a traffic cone on his head during a drunken jape has said that the whole situation was "ridiculous". Daniel “Dod” O’Donnell, of Worcester, said he was trying to keep a straight face when he was brought before magistrates for being drunk and disorderly. The 20-year-old appeared before magistrates in Worcester on Thursday where he was handed a conditional discharge for six months and ordered to pay a £135 and a £20 victim surcharge following the incident on July 31.
He said: “It was meant to be a laugh.
I find it all a bit silly really. I had it on my head. Police told me to take it off so I took it off.
There were a lot of other people saying ‘can we get a picture of you with it on’ so I put it back on.
Everyone wanted to take my picture. It was just a laugh. I was drunk and in good spirits and about to go home. I do like a bit of a joke when I’m out."
Mr O’Donnell had been out drinking when he said two female officers took issue with him wearing the cone.
He said: “I was running off and they chased me.
“I did lie down in the street because I was out of breath and they cuffed my hands behind my back. I can’t remember what they said to me.”
Mr O’Donnell spent a night in the cells and was charged next morning with being drunk and disorderly. He admits he has been silly but does not believe the case should have come to court.
He added: “It was a waste of taxpayers’ money, a waste of my time, a waste of their time. People keep making cone jokes. I walked into court with a straight face and came out smiling. I just find it ridiculous.”
His solicitor, Sarah Brady, also criticised the decision to bring the case to court as the 'most harmless' example of drunken disorderly behaviour she had ever seen.
Sgt Adrian Bean of West Mercia Police said: "Officers patrolling in Worcester arrested Mr O'Donnell for being drunk and disorderly in a public place.
Whilst, for a time, he did have a traffic cone on his head it was his overall disorderly conduct that led to his arrest.
His public actions were reviewed and the decision was made that a charge was appropriate under section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act."