Duress

• Introduction

  forced to do through fear or coercion

  -common law defence

  -necessity defence

  -R v Howe not available for murder

  -R v Wilson - age or vulnerability no matter

  -R v Gott-attempted murder

  -R v Howe ignore situation of hykacking or motorist

  -R v gotts pribabtion can reduce sentance
• Introduction circumstance


  duress of circumstances differs from duress in that the circumstances dictates the crime rather than a person

  -You feel pressure in the circumstances you are in and this leads you to commit a crime

  -No one has to threatened the defendant

  -An example of this defence is demonstrated in R V willer

  -duress of circumstances is avaliable for all offences except 1.murder 2.attempted murder 3.treason

  -defence of duress of circumstances was avaliable if on an objective standpoint the defendant was acting in order to avoid a threat of death or serious injury

  -R v pommel confirmed that duress of circumstances could be the defence to all crimes except murder,attempted murder and treason

  -r v cairns states It is sufficient for the defendant to show that they acted as they did because they reasonably perceived a threat of serious physical injury or death

  -However they are not required to prove that the threat was an actual or real threat this was shown in R v Abdul-Hussain

  -r v Abdul-Hussain -the threat need not be immediate but it had to be imminent in the sense that it was hanging over them
• Tests established


  In R v hasan
• The threat


  -Serious injury is given its normal meaning, so the victim will have to be subject to injury equivalent to a grievous bodily harm.

  -If the threat is for something less serious, or a threat to disclose a previous conviction, this on its own is not sufficient.

  - However, provided there are serious threats, the cumulative effect of the threats can be considered, as in the case of R v

  Valderrama-Vega [1985].

  -R v Hudson and Taylor threat must be effective at moment of crime but dosent need to be carried out immediately
• Against who must the threat by made


  D someone close or immediate family
• Did D act Reasonably

  -In deciding if the defence should succeed, the jury must consider a two-stage test:

  -1. Was the defendant compelled to act as they did because they reasonably believed that they had a good cause to fear serious injury or death?

  -The defendant must genuinely believe in the effectiveness of the threat, but also reasonably believe in it too. This test is of an objective nature.

  -2.. If the first test is satisfied, would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the same characteristics of the accused, have responded in the same way?

  -The jury is allowed to take certain aspects of the defendant's characteristics into account, as the reasonable person is regarded as sharing the relevant characteristics of the defendant

  -The characteristics that can be taken into account were decided in R v Bowen

  -The relevant characteristics must go to the ability to resist pressure and threats.

  The characteristics that could be accepted as relevant include:

  Age:

  Pregnancy:

  Serious physical disability:

  Recognised mental illness or psychiatric disorder:

  Gender:

  -The test that says 'The relevant characteristics must go to the ability to resist pressure and threats' was laid down in the Court of Appeal in R v graham

  -This test was then approved by the House of Lords in Howe (1987) and again in R v Hasan
• Did the threat relate directly


  R v coley
• Evasive action

  -R v gill only use if no safe avenue of escape

  -make clear to jury if threat not likely to be carried out immediately they have time as shown in R v Hudson and Taylor
• Did the lay themself open to the threat?


  -R v sharpe - voluntarily join organised criminals or gang can't use

  -R v Hasan - voluntary association