R v Hardie [1985] 1 WLR 64 (CA)

Facts

• Mr. Hardie consumed Valium tablets belonging to his former partner, believing the medication would alleviate his distress after a difficult separation.
• After ingesting the Valium, Hardie experienced an unexpected episode of aggression and set fire to the apartment.
• He was charged with arson.
• Hardie argued that the Valium produced an involuntary reaction, rendering his actions beyond his conscious control.

Issues

1. Whether the automatism defense was available where the defendant took a sedative drug in the reasonable belief it would calm him, but it instead produced unexpected harmful effects.
2. Whether Mr. Hardie’s conduct constituted self-induced intoxication, thus barring the automatism defense in a crime of basic intent.
3. Whether the jury should have been allowed to consider automatism as a defense in these circumstances.

Decision

• The trial judge directed the jury that Hardie's act in taking Valium amounted to self-induced intoxication, thus excluding the automatism defense, and Hardie was convicted.
• The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, holding that Valium was generally regarded as a sedative without recognized risk of causing aggression.
• The court found that if the defendant had no reason to anticipate a dangerous reaction, and expected the medication to soothe him, his actions might be considered involuntary.
• The Court of Appeal decided the jury should have been permitted to consider the defense of automatism.

Legal Principles

• Automatism is a full defense to criminal charges where the defendant lacks conscious control due to an external factor, not a disease of the mind.
• The defense is unavailable if automatism was self-induced through reckless or foreseeable conduct.
• There is a distinction between intoxication by substances known to reduce self-restraint (e.g., alcohol) and unexpected effects from drugs like Valium, normally considered sedative.
• The defendant’s actual knowledge and reasonable assumptions about the drug’s effects are important; lack of foreknowledge of harmful effects may permit the automatism defense.
• Medical evidence is important to establish whether a drug could cause involuntary behavior.
• The prosecution must prove voluntary conduct; once evidence of automatism is adduced, the burden is on the prosecution to show intentional action.
• Public policy considerations are involved, balancing fairness to defendants with the need to protect the public from harm resulting from involuntary conduct.

Conclusion

R v Hardie established that automatism can be available as a defense where a defendant takes a sedative drug in the genuine belief it will calm them, and could not reasonably foresee adverse effects, distinguishing such cases from those involving self-induced intoxication by disinhibiting substances. The case highlights the importance of the defendant's expectations and supporting medical evidence in automatism claims.