“Non-dangerous therapeutic drugs may negate basic intent if taken without recklessness regarding effects.”
Hardie took several Valium tablets belonging to his estranged partner during an emotional crisis when she asked him to leave their flat. While under the influence of Valium, he started a fire in the bedroom. He was charged with arson and claimed the Valium affected his judgment and awareness.
Whether intoxication by therapeutic drugs like Valium should be treated the same as alcohol and dangerous drugs, and whether such intoxication can provide a defence to crimes of basic intent.
The Court of Appeal held that intoxication by non-dangerous therapeutic drugs like Valium could provide a defence to basic intent crimes if the defendant was not reckless in taking the drug.
This case creates an important exception to the general rule that voluntary intoxication cannot excuse crimes of basic intent. It recognises the different nature of therapeutic drugs and provides a more nuanced approach to intoxication defences, particularly relevant for prescription medication cases.
You're reading the free summary of R v Hardie. 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 Hardie [1985] 1 WLR 64
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.