Duress is a complete defence. If the defendant meets the evidential burden, the prosecution must meet the legal burden to disprove their claim.
Both self-defence and duress cannot be pleaded at the same time; it is not a matter for the jury to decide which defence is relevant. [1]
Types of Duress:
Duress of Circumstances:
The defendant commits an offence because of a threat from some circumstance.
In Willer, W drove on a pavement to escape a gang threatening him and the passengers. W avoiding an immediate threat, so not liable.
In Quayle, Q produced and processed cannabis to relieve pain for MS. The Court of Appeal denied Q's appeal as there must be an imminent danger of serious physical injury, not just pain.
In Cole, C committed 2 robberies because he owed money to moneylenders who had threatened him and his girlfriend. C claimed that this was duress of circumstance. The appeal was dismissed as there was no imminent threat from the moneylenders, so there was no need for C to commit the robberies.
Duress of Threats:
The defendant commits an offence because of a threat from another.
The person making the threat is always a secondary party to the crime.
EG: we will commit a crime, unless you commit a crime.
Requirements [2]:
Threat of death or GBH.
Directed against the defendant, their family, or someone they are responsible for.
The defendant must have a reasonable belief in the threat’s execution. [3]
The defendants response to the threat must be the response expected of a person of reasonable firmness. [4]
The defendant must not have had a reasonable opportunity to escape the threat.
The threat must not be reasonably foreseeable. [5]
In Bowen, B had the reading age of a child, an IQ of 68 and was a vulnerable individual. The Court of Appeal held that the gender, age, pregnancy and possibility of physical / mental disability of the defendant are relevant in weighing up if their behaviour was reasonable. However, their low intelligence was not.
‘There may be grounds for criticising a principle of law that does not afford a 13-year-old boy any defence to a charge of murder on the ground that he was complying with his father’s instructions, which he was too frightened…to disobey.’ [8]
Resources:
References:
[1] R v Riddell [2017] EWCA Crim 413 [2] R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22 [3] R v Graham [1982] 1 WLR 294 [4] R v Graham [1982] 1 WLR 294 [5] R v Sharp 85 Cr App R 212 [6] R v Howe & Bannister [1987] 2 WLR 568 [7] R v Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412 [8] R v Wilson [2007] EWCA Crim 1895
Cases Mentioned:
R v Willer (1986) 83 Cr App R 225
R v Quayle [2005] 1 WLR 3642
R v Cole [1994] Crim LR 582
R v Bowen (Cecil) [1996] 4 All ER 837
Comments