The case of R. v Hardie [1984] creates an important precedent and is cited in the current edition of Archbold (1989). It is argued that the pharmacological issues discussed therein contain errors that seem to go to the heart of the judgment, which illustrates the differences between the legal and scientific viewpoint.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArchboldJ. F. (1989) Pleading Evidence and Practice in Criminal Cases. Sweet and Maxwell, London.
2.
Br. Med. J. (1975) (i) Leader: Tranquilisers causing aggression, 113–4
3.
LaskinJ. L.WilliamsonK. G. (1984) An evaluation of the amnesic effects of Diazepam sedation. J. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery42, 712–6.
4.
LundgrenS.RosenquistJ. B. (1984) Comparison of sedation, amnesia and patient comfort produced by intravenous and rectal Diazepam. J. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery42, 646–50.
5.
ZisookS.DevaulR. A. (1977) Adverse behavioural effects of benzodiazepines. J. Family Practice5, 963–6.
