R v Hardie [1985] 1 WLR 64
Criminal – Arson – Unintentional intoxication by prescription drugs – relevance of drug consumption on mens rea
Facts:
Mr Hardie was charged with arson under ss 1(2) and (3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (CDA), for allegedly intending to damage a woman’s property by being reckless. Mr Hardie consumed a large amount of valium to calm himself after the lady he was living with asked him to leave their flat. He returned in an intoxicated state and set fire to the wardrobe in his bedroom. He appealed the conviction.
Issues:
Whether the defence of involuntary intoxication was available to Hardie, and taken into account when considering Hardie’s state of mind in respect of all aspects of mens rea. Whether Hardie foresaw the immediate result of his actions.
Held:
It was held that Hardie’s state of mind had to be considered under s 1(2) of the CDA. Only when he performed the relevant act (i.e. burning the wardrobe) could the requirements of an intention to destroy and or recklessness be established. Any incapacity resulting from the taking of Valium should have been considered and put to the jury as its effects were relevant. It was held that the self-administration of a drug does not necessarily give rise to the assumption that it could not negatively affect the mens rea in the same way illegal drugs or alcohol could. The conviction was quashed on the basis that by taking the drug, Hardie could not have appreciated the risks to property and persons from his actions. It could not reasonably be determined that taking Valium was reckless either.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in R v Hardie [1985] 1 WLR 64. The Criminal Damage Act 1971, including ss 1(2) and 1(3), remains in force without material amendment to the provisions relevant to this case. The principle established in Hardie — that self-administration of a sedative or soporific drug which the defendant did not appreciate could cause dangerous or unpredictable behaviour may found a defence of involuntary intoxication, distinct from voluntary intoxication through alcohol or illegal drugs — continues to represent good law. The case remains regularly cited in academic and practitioner discussions of the intoxication defence and mens rea in criminal law. Readers should note that the broader law on intoxication and recklessness has been developed further by cases such as R v G [2003] UKHL 50, which replaced the Caldwell objective recklessness test (applicable at the time of Hardie) with a subjective test under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. This makes the subjective approach taken in Hardie regarding Hardie’s actual appreciation of risk even more consistent with the current legal framework than it was when decided. No subsequent legislation or appellate authority has overruled or materially qualified the Hardie principle.
