Duress Scenario
Introduction
Duress is where a person is forced to commit a crime because they were under
threat of death or personal injury by another.
The duress can come in the form of a threat or from the circumstances themselves.
The defence is not available for murder or attempted murder as demonstrated by the
cases of Howe and Gotts, even if D’s age makes them more susceptible to committing
such crimes (R v Wilson).
Overruled DPP v Lynch, where it was held that duress was available as a defence to
murder.
Duress by Threats
Duress by threats is where a person is forced to commit a crime under a direct threat
of death or personal injury.
The case of Graham created a 2-part test which can be used to determine whether D
can rely on the defence.
The test seeks to address the balance between the seriousness of the threat and the
seriousness of the resulting criminal behaviour.
Part 1 – Subjective Test
Part 1 asks whether D acted because he reasonably believed that he would face
death or serious personal injury.
Seriousness
Threats other than death and personal injury will not be regarded as sufficiently
serious to constitute duress.
This is demonstrated by Valderrama-Vega, where it was held that threats to reveal
D’s homosexuality alone would be insufficient to find the defence but could be taken
into account when coupled with threats of serious personal violence.
The case of R v Hasan confirmed this position.
Was V threatened by the prospect of death or serious personal injury?
Unavoidable/Imminent
The defence will only succeed where the threat is unavoidable and imminent.
If the defendant had a chance to escape or report the threat to the police, then they
cannot use duress.
This is demonstrated by the case of R v Gill, where D was convicted after he was
threatened to steal a lorry but had a ‘safe avenue of escape’.
The case of Abdul-Hussain demonstrates that the threat need not be immediate, but
it has to be ‘imminent’ in the sense that it is ‘hanging over D’.
Introduction
Duress is where a person is forced to commit a crime because they were under
threat of death or personal injury by another.
The duress can come in the form of a threat or from the circumstances themselves.
The defence is not available for murder or attempted murder as demonstrated by the
cases of Howe and Gotts, even if D’s age makes them more susceptible to committing
such crimes (R v Wilson).
Overruled DPP v Lynch, where it was held that duress was available as a defence to
murder.
Duress by Threats
Duress by threats is where a person is forced to commit a crime under a direct threat
of death or personal injury.
The case of Graham created a 2-part test which can be used to determine whether D
can rely on the defence.
The test seeks to address the balance between the seriousness of the threat and the
seriousness of the resulting criminal behaviour.
Part 1 – Subjective Test
Part 1 asks whether D acted because he reasonably believed that he would face
death or serious personal injury.
Seriousness
Threats other than death and personal injury will not be regarded as sufficiently
serious to constitute duress.
This is demonstrated by Valderrama-Vega, where it was held that threats to reveal
D’s homosexuality alone would be insufficient to find the defence but could be taken
into account when coupled with threats of serious personal violence.
The case of R v Hasan confirmed this position.
Was V threatened by the prospect of death or serious personal injury?
Unavoidable/Imminent
The defence will only succeed where the threat is unavoidable and imminent.
If the defendant had a chance to escape or report the threat to the police, then they
cannot use duress.
This is demonstrated by the case of R v Gill, where D was convicted after he was
threatened to steal a lorry but had a ‘safe avenue of escape’.
The case of Abdul-Hussain demonstrates that the threat need not be immediate, but
it has to be ‘imminent’ in the sense that it is ‘hanging over D’.
