Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC ...

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.