“Voluntary intoxication cannot found a claim of self-defence in any criminal case.”
O'Grady and his friend McCloskey had been drinking heavily. O'Grady claimed he woke to find McCloskey attacking him and fought back in self-defence, accidentally killing him. He argued his intoxicated state affected his perception of the threat.
Whether a defendant can rely on self-defence when their mistaken belief about the need for defensive action arose from voluntary intoxication.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. A defendant cannot rely on self-defence where their mistaken belief in the need for defensive action was caused by voluntary intoxication, regardless of whether the offence is one of specific or basic intent.
This case established an important limitation on the Beckford principle, showing that honest belief must not be the product of voluntary intoxication. It demonstrates how policy considerations can override general legal principles in criminal law.
You're reading the free summary of R v O'Grady. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
R v O'Grady [1987] QB 995 (CA)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.