Hardie, R. v [1984] EWCA Crim 2 (31 July 1984)

Hardie, R. v [1984] EWCA Crim 2 (31 July 1984)

The trial judge erred in directing the jury that the effects of Valium were necessarily irrelevant to the appellant's capacity to form mens rea. The jury should have been instructed to consider whether the appellant's incapacity, if any, resulted from the Valium and whether the taking of Valium was itself reckless. As the misdirection could have affected the verdict, the conviction was unsafe and was quashed.

Citation
[1984] EWCA Crim 2
Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 1984
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Arson, Intoxication, Mens Rea, Recklessness, Automatism, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Arson Intoxication Mens Rea Recklessness Automatism Jury Directions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether self-induced intoxication by Valium can negate mens rea for arson under section 1(2) and (3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 when recklessness is an element of the offence.
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by instructing them to disregard the effects of Valium on the appellant's mental state.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of section 1(2)(b) can be satisfied if the accused gave no thought to the risk of endangering life.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in directing the jury that the effects of Valium were necessarily irrelevant to the appellant's capacity to form mens rea. The jury should have been instructed to consider whether the appellant's incapacity, if any, resulted from the Valium and whether the taking of Valium was itself reckless. As the misdirection could have affected the verdict, the conviction was unsafe and was quashed.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed

Orders

  • conviction quashed
  • appeal allowed