View source for Brennan v HM Advocate

{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2016}}
{{Use British English|date=December 2016}}
{{Infobox court case
| name               = Brennan v HM Advocate
| court              = [[High Court of Justiciary]]<br/>''(sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeal)''
| image              = Coat of arms of the United Kingdom in Scotland.svg
| imagesize          = 100px
| caption            =
| full name          =
| date decided       = 24 January 1975
| citations          = 1977 JC 38, 1977 [[Scots Law Times|SLT]] 151
| transcripts        =
| judges             = [[Lord President of the Court of Session|Lord Justice General]] [[George Emslie, Baron Emslie|Lord Emslie]], [[Lord Justice Clerk]] [[John Wheatley, Baron Wheatley|Lord Wheatley]], Lords Cameron, Kissen, [[Ian Shearer, Lord Avonside|Avonside]], Thomson and [[Donald Ross, Lord Ross|Ross]]
| prior actions      =
| subsequent actions =
| opinions           =
| keywords           =
}}
'''''Brennan v HM Advocate''''' 1977 JC 38 was a [[Scots law#Criminal law|Scots criminal]] [[appeal]] case decided in the [[High Court of Justiciary]] in its capacity as the Court of Criminal Appeal. The case set the precedent that voluntary intoxication, whether by [[Alcoholic beverage|drink]] or [[drug]]s, cannot be used to establish [[Defense (legal)|defences]] of [[automatism (law)|automatism]] or [[insanity defence|insanity]].
Brennan had been convicted of murdering his father during a state of intoxication. This was held not to qualify as automatism as the appelant had entered this state voluntarily. The Court-based this reasoning on a number of passages from the work of [[David Hume (jurist)|Baron Hume]], one of the [[Scots law#The Institutional Writers|institutional writers]].
It was also held insufficient to meet the requirements of the special defence of [[insanity defence|insanity]]. [[Lord President of the Court of Session|Lord Justice General]] [[George Emslie, Baron Emslie|Lord Emslie]] stated:
:''"In the law of Scotland a person who voluntarily and deliberately consumes known intoxicants, including drink or drugs, of whatever quantity, for their intoxicating effects, whether these effects are fully foreseen or not, cannot rely on the resulting intoxication as the foundation of a special defence of insanity at the time nor, indeed, can he plead diminished responsibility."''
The defendant's appeal against conviction for murder was refused.
{{reflist}}
[[Category:High Court of Justiciary cases]]
[[Category:1977 in United Kingdom case law]]
[[Category:1977 in Scotland]]
{{Scotland-law-stub}}
{{case-law-stub}}