Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
LO6 - Understand the requirements of the general defences - Requirements…
LO6 - Understand the requirements of the general defences - Requirements of the defence of duress
requirements of duress by threats, duress of circumstances/ necessity
R v Graham (1982)
where D claims that he believed albeit mistakenly that he was under duress or that the threats being applied were more serious than they really were he can rely only upon what he reasonably believed to be the situation.
R v Hudson and Taylor (1971)
2 teenage girls committed perjury. Court held sufficiently immediate for defence to succeed. Cast doubt upon this in Hasan.
R v Howe (1987)
H of L held that duress is no defence to murder when the accused is charged as a principal offender. Equally no defence if charged as a secondary party to murder.
R v Gotts (1992)
H of L held that duress is no defence to attempted murder.
R v Bowen (1996)
Bowen’s appeal against conviction was dismissed. An accused’s gender, age and possibility of physical disability are relevant in weighing reasonable behaviour. However, low intelligence was not. On this basis, the direction given to the jury was considered appropriate.
R v Abdul Hussain (1999)
The execution of the threat need not be immediate. . Imminent peril of death or serious injury is an essential element of both types of duress. The defence of duress is available to those who hijack an aircraft, although in such cases the terror induced in innocent passengers will raise issues of proportionality for determination.
R v Hasan (2005)
requirements for the defence confirmed by H of L Threat of death or serious injury, directed against D or someone for whom D reasonably regards himself as responsible, reasonable belief and a good cause to fear, causal effect of the threat, immediacy of the threat, voluntary exposure to duress
R v Martin (1989)
wife threatened to commit suicide if D did not drive son to work he was disqualified. Appeal allowed. The defence of duress of circumstances should have been available to him following the decisions
Re A (conjoined twins) (2001)
suggested 3 requirements for the defence of necessity to succeed 1. the act must be needed to avoid inevitable and irreparable evil, 2. no more should be done than is reasonably necessary for the purpose to be achieved 3. the evil inflicted must not be disproportionate to the evil avoided.
R v Shayler (2001)
Whilst the defence of duress could be raised in offences under the Official Secrets Act, there was insufficient precision in Shayler’s claims. He could not identify the action that was going to create imminent threats to life, nor could he identify the potential victims or establish that he had responsibility for them.