R v Hardie

Facts

Hardie had a relationship with a woman who ended it, and he was distressed. He took Valium tablets to calm his nerves. He then set fire to a wardrobe in the flat, and he was charged with criminal damage being reckless as to whether life would be endangered.

History

At trial the judge directed the jury that the effect of the Valium was not relevant because he had taken it voluntarily, and Hardie was convicted of criminal damage with intent to endanger life or being reckless as to whether life was endangered. He appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issue

Whether the rule that voluntary intoxication is no defence to a crime of basic intent applies to a defendant who has taken a sedative or soporific drug, which unlike alcohol is not generally known to cause unpredictable or aggressive behaviour.

Held

Appeal allowed and the conviction quashed. The judge should have left it to the jury to decide whether the defendant had been reckless in taking the Valium, since the drug was a sedative and he took it for the purpose of calming himself.

Ratio

• The Majewski rule that self-induced intoxication does not negative the mens rea of basic intent offences rests on the recklessness of becoming intoxicated. It does not apply automatically to a drug that is not known to be liable to cause unpredictable or aggressive conduct. Where a sedative has been taken, the jury must decide whether the defendant was reckless in taking it, and if not, the intoxication may be relevant to whether he had the required mens rea.

The judgments

Key reasoning

• The rationale of the Majewski rule is that a person who voluntarily takes alcohol or drugs which he knows can cause unpredictable or uncontrolled behaviour is reckless in doing so, and the recklessness supplies the mens rea.
• Valium is a sedative and is commonly regarded as soporific, and its effects on behaviour are different from alcohol, so taking it does not necessarily involve the awareness of risk that the rule presupposes.
• The taking of a drug on medical or quasi-medical grounds, and not to get intoxicated, is a relevant matter, and the question should have been left to the jury.

Where it fits in the module

In the Incapacity and General Defences topic the case frames the treatment of voluntary intoxication, the distinction between dangerous and non-dangerous substances, and the role of recklessness as the basis for liability. It should be read with Majewski, Lipman and Kingston, and with later cases about the effect of intoxication on mistakes about consent or self-defence. Questions for discussion include whether the rule reflects the actual attitudes of defendants and whether it treats like cases alike.

Criticisms

• The case makes liability turn on a distinction between sedative and dangerous drugs that is hard to apply and not based on a clear principle, since many drugs have unpredictable effects.
• It creates an exception to the Majewski rule that rests on the subjective recklessness of the defendant, while the rule itself is justified by policy, and the two are difficult to reconcile.
• The decision gives scope for a defendant to avoid liability for violent offences by taking prescribed or semi-prescribed drugs, which raises questions about public protection and the clarity of the law.