Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1962 |
| Date | 01 January 1962 |
House of Lords - Jurisdiction - Criminal cause or matter - Grant of certificate that decision involved point of law of general public importance - Whether jurisdiction of House of Lords on hearing appeal limited to determination of that point of law -
Under the provisions of the Administration of Justice Act, 1960,F1 relating to appeals to the House of Lords, once the court from which the appeal is brought has certified that a point of law of general public importance is involved in the decision, and leave to appeal has been given, either by that court or the House of Lords, the jurisdiction of the House of Lords to hear the appeal is established and there is nothing in the Administration of Justice Act, 1960, in any way limiting its jurisdiction. It will always he a matter for the exercise of the House's discretion whether to allow a point in no way connected with the certified point of law to be argued on the appeal, and it is not to be assumed that an appellant can as a matter of right raise any such point (post, p. 631).
The respondent, who was of a psychopathic disposition, was convicted at Belfast of the murder of his wife. At his trial the defence relied upon was that he was insane at the time of committing the act within the meaning of the M'Naughten Rules, or, in the alternative, was by reason of the consumption of alcohol incapable of forming the intent necessary to constitute murder and therefore guilty only of manslaughter. There was evidence that before taking the alcohol the respondent had evinced an intention to kill his wife. The defence of diminished responsibility is not available in Northern Ireland.
On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal in Northern Ireland held that the verdict of murder could not stand, on the ground that the trial judge had misdirected the jury in that he directed them to apply the M'Naughten test not to the time of committing the act but to the moment before the respondent took alcohol. The court further held that in the circumstances it could not substitute either a verdict of guilty but insane or a verdict of manslaughter, and, accordingly, directed a verdict of acquittal to be entered.
The Crown thereupon applied under the provisions of the Administration of Justice Act, 1960, for a certificate that a point of law of general public importance was involved and for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. The court certified that
“the following point of law of general public importance was involved in our decision:- Whether a person in a psychopathic condition which is quiescent may become insane (within the meaning of the rules in M'Naughten's case (
1843 )10 Cl. & F. 200 ) as the result of the voluntary consumption by him of intoxicating liquor, if the effect of that intoxicating liquor is to bring about an explosive outburst in the course of a mental disease although the disease was not itself caused by intoxicating liquor.”
Leave to appeal, however, was refused on the ground
“that in the opinion of this court a ruling on this point of law in favour of the Crown's contention would not lead to a reversal of the decision of this court.”
Subsequently, leave was granted by the House of Lords:—
Held, allowing the appeal, (1) that the jurisdiction of the House of Lords under section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1960, was not limited to determining the point of law set out in the certificate.
Law on drunkenness as a defence to crime restated, per Lord Denning (post, pp. 640, 641).
Observations as to the desirability of courts of criminal appeal having power to order a new trial (post, pp. 629, 631).
APPEAL from the Court of Criminal Appeal in Northern Ireland (Black and Curran L.JJ. and Sheil J.).
The respondent, Patrick Gallagher, was convicted at the Northern Ireland Winter Assizes held at Belfast before the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland (Lord MacDermott C.J.) of the murder of his wife, Rose Gallagher, on September 7, 1960. The defence relied upon was that the respondent was insane at the time of the killing within the meaning of the M'Naughten Rules or, in the alternative, was by reason of drink incapable of forming the intent necessary to constitute murder, and therefore that he was guilty only of manslaughter. The defence of diminished responsibility is not available in Northern Ireland. The medical evidence concerning his mental condition was conflicting, but there was evidence that he was an aggressive psychopath, that this is a disease of the mind which is quiescent for considerable periods but manifests itself from time to time in explosive outbursts, and that taking drink is likely to cause an outburst.
The following summary of evidence given at the trial is taken from the opinion of Lord Tucker: The respondent and his wife had been married for about 16 years during which time there were frequent quarrels, generally when he had taken drink, and on occasions he used violence towards her. In 1957 she obtained a separation order against him and he went to England. He was injured at work there and in 1959 returned to Ireland and lived again with his wife and family near Omagh. His drinking habits increased and there were further quarrels. On May 26, 1960, there was a serious quarrel. A doctor was sent for who persuaded him to go for treatment to a mental hospital in Omagh, where he was admitted as a temporary patient. On June 8 he was allowed to go home on a 90-day trial. He again started drinking and assaulted his wife. On July 19 she refused to let him in and he went to his father's house. The doctor (Dr. Lagan) visited him there and arranged for his readmission to the mental hospital. By mid-August his condition had improved and he was allowed to go into Omagh. On the 15th of that month his wife obtained an order for maintenance against him for £3 a week. On September 6 he was seen by Dr. Gray at the hospital, when he appeared to be cheerful and perfectly normal. On September 7 Mrs. Gallagher was alone in the house after the children left for school. At 9.45 the respondent left the hospital and went into Omagh where he bought a “Sky-line” knife. He then entered a public house where he bought a bottle of “Guinness” and a bottle of Power's whisky. Shortly after this he was seen riding a cycle along a road which was one of the routes leading to his wife's house, to reach which would take him about half an hour. At 1.30 p.m. Miss Aitken and Mrs. Speers, who lived next door to Mrs. Gallagher, heard a noise and saw the respondent collapsing on the kitchen floor. He had blood on his clothes and hands and was drunk. They threw water on him. When he had recovered they asked him what had happened to him. He said he had killed his wife. One of them said “Oh, no, you didn't,” and he replied: “Come round and see.” They went to the house and found Mrs. Gallagher's body in the bed covered with bed clothes up to her neck and blood on the floor. They took the respondent back to their house, locked the door of Mrs. Gallagher's house and sent for the police.
When the police arrived they found Mrs. Gallagher's body naked except for a pair of shoes. There were terrible injuries to her head and body. The head and face were covered in blood and the sheets saturated. A “Sky-line” knife with a seven-inch blade stained with blood to the hilt was found in the room. On the floor beneath the bed was an old hammer the head of which was stained with blood. On the chest of drawers was a bottle of Power's whisky containing about two glasses. There were blood stains on the cellophane with which the bottle was wrapped. At about 4.15 p.m. the respondent at Omagh Police Station said to Sergeant Coyle: “I have no regrets: she gave me a hell of a life these past three years.” Later, after caution, he said: “I made up my mind to kill her about a fortnight or three weeks ago.”
Shortly after 7 p.m. he said: “I am going to open up my mind to you.” He was told: “You don't have to “and again cautioned. He said:
“I will tell you all. I left hospital this morning about half past nine on parole given to me by Dr. Johnston. I went into Wellworth's and bought a knife at five and three and a bottle of aspirins. After I had killed my wife I was going to do myself in by first taking the aspirins to deaden the pain and then use the knife on myself. I went into Yarrow's pub in Bridge Street and drank a bottle of ‘Guinness’ and bought a bottle of whisky for £2. I went out on the bicycle and hid it. You fellows will have bother getting it. I went into the house at almost half past eleven and the wife was on her own. I asked her to take me back but she wouldn't. I then drank half of the whisky.”
The medical evidence showed that sexual intercourse had taken place which could have occurred at any time from a day or two before death until after death.
The respondent appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal in Northern Ireland, the main ground of appeal being that the trial judge had misdirected the jury in that he directed them to apply the M'Naughten test not to the time when the respondent killed his wife but to the morning of that day before he opened the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
R v Majewski
...concept to not in fact having a guilty intent because of drunkenness. 22 Beard's case was considered by the House of Lords in A-G for Northern Ireland v. Gallagher, (1963) Appeal Cases, 349. Their Lordships were concerned with the consequences of the voluntary consumption of alcohol upon c......
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Launder
...view that we should not decline to hear argument on issues other than on the question which had been certified. 23In Attorney General for Northern Ireland v. Gallagher [1963] A.C. 350 it was held that the jurisdiction of this House under section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 i......
- PP; Yue Sang Cheong Sdn Bhd
-
R v Lipman
...manslaughter or unlawful wounding for which no specific intent is necessary, see Beard's case." 7 The other case is the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v. Gallagher (reported in the same volume at page 349), and I cite a passage, again from Lord Denning, at page 381: "If a man is char......
-
Political Rhetoric or Principled Reform of Loss of Control? Anglo-Australian Perspectives on the Exclusionary Conduct Model
...11 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry77; and A. Ward, ‘Making Some Sense of Self-induced Intoxication’ [1986] CambLJ 247.29 [1963] AC 349.The Journal of Criminal that he was incapable of an intent to kill. So also, when he is a psychopathhe cannot by drinking rely on his self-induc......
-
Involuntary Intoxication
...RvM’Naughten [1843] 10 Cl & F 200 at 210. See DPP vBeard [1920] AC 479, 501; Attorney-General for Northern IrelandvGallagher [1963] AC 349 and RvC[2013] EWCA Crim 223 at [18] (the ‘precise line between the law of voluntaryintoxication and the law of insanity may be difficult to identify in ......
-
Preliminary sections
...Atswaga v. Agena (1964) N.N.L.R. 122………………..…...........................................…………1082 Att.-Gen. for N. Ireland v. Gallagher (1963) A.C. 349; (1961) 3 All E.R. 299…………….........1008 Attah v. State (1993) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 288) 403…….........................................................
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...of a felony of violence,now out-dated.TheattemptbyLordDenning to re-statethelaw inAttorneyGeneral (N.I.) v. Gallagher [1963] A.C. 349 was not intellectually successfuland wasapparentlynot evenreferredto here.TheCourtof Appeal in thiscase has put a simple formula. Anegative point,thatadrunke......