Duress By Threat Knowledge Summary

• Definition: the defence of duress by threats is used where D is forced to commit a crime due to a direct threat. It is where a person's will is overcome by threats and if they had not been threatened, they would never have committed the offence.
• • It is available to all crimes except murder; R v Howe, attempted murder; R v Gotts and Treason.
  • Graham test: Was D compelled to act because they reasonably believed they had a good reason to fear death or serious injury? Would a sober person, or reasonable firmness, sharing D's characteristics, have acted in the same way?
• Graham Test: Part 1: Was D compelled to act because they reasonably believed they had a good reason to fear death or serious injury?
• 1. What was the threat?

  Must be of death or serious harm. A threat to reveal homosexuality is not enough, R v Valderama-Vega nor a threat of an affair; R v Singh, or financial ruin; R v M'Growther.
• 2. Who was the threat aimed at?

  D (R v Graham), D's family (R v Ortiz), someone whom the D is responsible for (R v Shaylor) a stranger.
• 3. Specific offence:

  The D must have been told to commit a specific crime, R v Cole.
• 4. When?

  The threat must be unavoidable and imminent

  • Unavoidable means no safe avenue of escape and the defendant must reasonably expect retribution to follow immediately or almost immediately on his failure to comply with the threat (Hasan)
  • Imminent: Abdul-Hussain illustrates that there must be imminent peril of death or serious injury to the d or to whom he has responsibility for, it must be operating on the d's mind at the time of committing the criminal act and the execution need not be immediately in prospect
• 5. No self-induced

  The defence will fail if D associates with violent people who are known to make threats e.g. criminal gangs or terrorists, R v Hasan.
• Graham Test Part 2: Would a sober person, of reasonable firmness, sharing D's characteristics, have acted in the same way?

  • Sober means that the effect of drink or drugs on the defendant's ability to result the threats cannot be considered, R v Flatt
  • 'Reasonable firmness' is objectibe; the fact that a defendant is particularly vulnerable or timid cannot be taken into consideration.
  • 'Sharing D's characteristics' include; age, gender, pregnancy and disability but not very low IQ (Bowen), nor self-induced characteristics like alcohol or drug abuse.
• Outcome:

  Successful = acquitted

  Unsuccessful = convicted