R v Hardie
Taking a sedative drug, which is not normally associated with aggression, is not necessarily reckless voluntary intoxication.
Facts
Mr Hardie's relationship with his partner was breaking down. He was upset, and he took several Valium tablets, which belonged to his partner, to calm himself down. He had been told that they would do him no harm. Later, he set fire to a wardrobe in the flat where his partner and her daughter were. He was convicted of arson with intent to endanger life or being reckless as to whether life would be endangered, after the judge directed the jury that his voluntary intoxication was irrelevant.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. Parker LJ said that Valium is a sedative drug, which is normally expected to calm a person down, not to make him aggressive, unlike alcohol and dangerous drugs, whose effects are well known. The jury should have been directed to consider whether Mr Hardie was reckless in taking the drug, in the sense of knowing that it might make him aggressive or unpredictable. If he was not, the rule in Majewski did not apply.
Related cases on defences: insanity, automatism and intoxication
- Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC 349
- Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1994] QB 91
- DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443
- Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 QB 277
- M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 Cl & F 200
- R v Bailey [1983] 1 WLR 760
- R v Burgess [1991] 2 QB 92
- R v Coley; R v McGhee; R v Harris [2013] EWCA Crim 223
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
