duress by threats

• defence available for all crimes except murder and attempted murder
• where D was forced to commit the crime by threats of death or serious injury
• D has both Ar and Mr of crime but not truly at fault
• key case Graham:

  Was D forced to act as they did because they feared serious injury or death? (and if so...) (Subjective test)

  Would a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing D's characteristics have responded in the same way? (Objective test)
• Key elements:

  1.the graham test- was D forced to act as they did becuase they reasonably feared serious injury/ death? If so would a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing D's characteristics react in the same way?

  2. a threat of death or serious injury

  3.no safe avenue of escape

  4.the threat was imminent

  5.a direct link between the threat and the crime
• threat of death or serious injury (cases): Valdarrama- Vega- imported cocaine due to threat of sexuality being exposed as well as to his life threats to expose sexuality and financial threats were not enough on their own
• threat of death or serious injury (cases): relationships extend- Wright
• no safe avenue of escape: there must be no reasonable opportunity to avoid the crime
• no safe avenue of escape (cases): Gill- opportunity to raise alarm duress was not available
• no safe avenue of escape (cases): Hudson V Taylor- lied under oath after threats were made duress was allowed on the basis that police protection may not have been effective (decision was criticised so may not be available in future- see Hasan)
• Immediacy of the threats: threat must be hanging over D at the time they commit the offence does not have to be immediate provided its imminent
• Immediacy of the threat (cases): Abdul Hussain- six Muslims who were fugitives in sudan feared being deported back to Iraq to face death so hijaked a plane- duress applied the threats didn't have to be carried out immediately it was sufficient that they were imminent
• direct link between the threat and the crime: D can only use the defence of duress if the threats are in order to make him or her commit a specific offence
• direct link between the threat and the crime (cases): Cole- D threatened with a baseball bat if wouldn't repay money so D carried out two robberies duress not allowed as no connection between the threat and the crime
• self induced duress- Duress is not available if D brings the situation onto themselves
• self induced duress cases: sharp- threatened with violence when attempting to withdraw from gang
• self induced duress cases- shepherd- joined a gang of shop lifters but wasn't aware they were violent do duress was availabke
• self-induced duress- when D voluntarily associates with violent criminals without joining a gang there is no defence if they have forseen or should have forseen future threat to be forced to commit crime (Hasan)- claimed he was forced to carry out a burglary he did not foresee that prostitutes violent bf would make him carry out a crime through threats and a reasonable person wouldn't have forseen it either so duress was available
• R V Brandford (2016) (no safe avenue of escape- failed defence)- smuggled drugs with bf as he was receiving threats and had been beaten and stabbed in past by same people. Duress wasn't available for her due to having no first hand knowledge of the threat. she also lacked immediacy of threat and it was vague that 'something bad will happen'
• characteristics allowed: age, pregnancy, serious disability, possibly gender, some mental health conditions
• characteristics not allowed: low IQ, timidity, sexuality, self-induced abuse like drugs and alcohol
• duress is always unavailable for attempted murder and murder
• howe- threat to his own life so killed another- NO DURESS
• gotts- attempted to kill mother NO DURESS