Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC 349 (HL)

Facts

  • Patrick Gallagher, diagnosed as a psychopath, was convicted of murdering his wife.
  • At the time of the offence, Gallagher was intoxicated; the defence asserted either insanity due to a pre-existing mental condition or a lack of intent due to drunkenness.
  • The trial judge instructed the jury regarding both legal insanity and intoxication.
  • The case was appealed to the House of Lords, challenging the directions given to the jury.
  • Evidence showed Gallagher planned the killing, deliberately became intoxicated beforehand (“dutch courage”), retained memory of his actions, and was aware of the murder when it occurred.

Issues

  1. Whether intoxication could negate the necessary intent for murder, particularly where the defendant remembers and comprehends his actions.
  2. Whether the M’Naughten Rules applied to Gallagher’s mental condition, constituting insanity at the time of the act.
  3. Whether premeditated, voluntary intoxication (“dutch courage”) impacts criminal liability for murder.
  4. Whether the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the law of insanity and intoxication in the context of murder.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that voluntary intoxication does not negate intent for murder if the defendant is aware of and remembers his actions.
  • Gallagher’s psychopathy, being pre-existing and not caused by alcohol, did not satisfy the M’Naughten Rules for insanity.
  • Deliberate intoxication as an element of premeditated murder (“dutch courage”) does not reduce criminal responsibility.
  • The trial judge’s directions on both insanity and intoxication were found to be correct.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the conviction for murder upheld.

Legal Principles

  • Intoxication negates criminal intent only if so extreme that the defendant does not know what he is doing, as affirmed in Director of Public Prosecutions v Beard [1920] AC 479.
  • Premeditated consumption of alcohol to facilitate the commission of murder does not provide a legal defence and indicates intent.
  • The M’Naughten Rules require that insanity must render the defendant incapable of understanding the nature or wrongness of the act; mere psychopathy, not amounting to this threshold, does not suffice.
  • Self-induced intoxication does not excuse or reduce murder liability where intent can be established.

Conclusion

The House of Lords confirmed that self-induced intoxication, especially when serving as “dutch courage” for a pre-planned murder, does not negate intent nor establish insanity, upholding Gallagher’s conviction for murder.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal