Duress

• Duress is a common law defence that applies where a person commits a crime because they were acting under a threat of death or serious injury - D is forced to break the law because of the threat but he must have acted as a reasonable man
• The test for duress was set out in the case of Hasan

  1. Threat to cause death or serious injury against D/immediate family/someone they are close to
  2. D must act reasonably in the light of the threats and be judged objectively
  3. The threats relate closely to the crime - causal nexus
  4. No evasive action D could have taken
  5. Defence fails if D voluntarily associates themselves
• 1. The threat must be of death to the D, immediate family or someone they were close to - this is seen in the case of Valderrama-Vega
• 2. D must act reasonably in the light of the threats and be judged objectively - Seen in the case of Graham

  • Subjective test: Was he forced to act as he reasonably believed he has cause to fear death or serious injury?
  • Objective test: Would the sober man of reasonable firmness, having D's characteristics have acted in the same way? *MUST APPLY IN PQ*
• 3. Causal Nexus - Seen in the case of Cole

  • There must be a direct link between the threat and the final crime committed by the D otherwise the defence will fail
• 4. Timing of the threat - Seen in the case of Gill

  • Could D have taken any evasive action, were they in a situation where they have 'no safe avenue of escape?'
• 5. Voluntary association - Seen in the case of Hasan

  • Did D voluntarily associate themselves with the threat? Did he foresee or ought to have reasonably foreseen the risk of being subjected to threats or violence
• Duress by circumstance:

  • Threat comes by a circumstance, not a person
  • 1. He reasonably believed he has good cause to fear death or serious injury, and;
  • 2. A sober man of reasonable firmness, sharing some of D's characteristics would have reacted in the same way