Duress Flashcards
Definition
Hasan [2005] UKHL 22: the defence operates as such:
D is told to commit a crime and that if he does not, he, a family member or someone he feels responsible for, will be imminently killed or caused serious bodily harm. D accedes to the threat, which a reasonable person would have acceded to, and D did not voluntarily assume the risk.
Cole [1994] Crim LR 582
D was threatened with violence by money lenders but not told to commit a crime, so he could not use duress as a defence in relation to a subsequent robbery
Gotts [1992] 2 WLR 284
father threated to kill son unless his son killed his mother – not a defence to attempted murder
Brandford [2016] EWCA Crim 1794
The trial judge ruled that duress by threats must be founded on threats made directly to d, so if d was told that another had made threats to d, d would not be able to rely on the defence
Howe [1987] AC 417 1
mistakes to be genuine and reasonable
Martin [2002] 2 Cr App R 42
- . D committed 2 robberies
- . D believed that his mother would be killed/ suffer GBH if he did not commit the offence
- D had schizoid- affective disorder and was more likely than other people to regard things said as a threat, and to believe that they would be carried out
- On appeal held: an honest/ genuine belief suffices
Safi [2003] EWCA Crim 1809
- D hijacked a plane from Afghanistan and landed it and Stanstead airport
- D charged with hijacking, pleaded duress by threats
- D believed that they were under threat of death or serious harm from the Taliban
- CA confirmed that there need not be an actual threat – D can be mistaken
- CA did not clarify if the belief regarding the threat had to be reasonable or honest
Hasan [2005] UKHL 22
The current law: d belief as to the threat must be honest and reasonable (but did not address relevancy of characteristics of RP)
• D was a driver and minder for a sex worker
• Y gangster/ drug dealer boyfriend told D to carry out a burglary and that if he didn’t that d and his family would be harmed
• HL: lord Bingham the defence will fail when:
o D voluntarily associated with other engaged in criminal activity where
o D foresaw the risk of being subjective to any compulsion by threats of violence or failing this
o The Reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of being subjective to any compulsion by threats of violence
M’Growther’s Case [1746] Fost 13
Threat to property did not suffice – at that time it also had to be a threat of death
Singh [1973]1 WLR 1600
threats of blackmail will not suffice
Valderrama-Vega [1985] Crim LR 220
threats to expose sexual behavior does not suffice
facts:
• Threats of death and serious injury by a mafia organization where relevant
• This was even though there were other irrelevant threats regarding disclosure of homosexual inclination and finical ruin
Baker and Wilkins [1997] Crim LR 497
must be physical – threat to cause psychiatric injury insufficient
A [2012] EWCA Crim 434
threat of rape suffices
Hammond [2013] EWCA Crim 2709
- D charged with prison breaking
- D said that this was because a fellow prisoner had made sexual suggestions to him and he wanted to resist attacking x for this
- However, at trial d said he escaped because x had threatened to take care of d if he reported his sexual advances
- D convicted
- On appeal held: d really escaped to avoid sexual advances from x but they were insufficiently serious
Bianco [2001] EWCA Crim 2516
threat of minor injury does not suffice
Opportunity to escape:
D on trial for being knowingly involved in the importation of heroin – d had numerous opportunities to get away from the principles
Rodger and Rose [1998] 1 Cr App R 143
d escaped prison – threat from himself insufficient
Hudson and Taylor [1971] 2 QB 202
- They had been threatened with serious injury If they told the truth
- They could see one of the gang sitting in the courtroom
- CA held: the fact that the threat could not materialize immediately was irrelevant
- The girls believed it would occur despite an interval
- They had to made up their minds there and then whether to commit the offence while the threat was still operating
Opportunity to go to the police:
CA held: if the girls sought police protection, they thought it would have been ineffective
This judgement has often been criticized for being too favorable to d’s and other cases have been more objective
Abdul-Hussain [1999] Crim LR 570
- Iraqis hijacked a plane
- they feared if it landed in Iraq they would be killed
- but this would not have been for several hours
- CA held the question was whether d feared that the treat was immanent
Hurley and Murray [1967] VR 526
- D was told his partner who was being held hostage elsewhere was being threatened
- These threats acted on d mind and lead to him committing an offence
Opportunity to go to the police:
D had ample opportunity to go to the police but the defence might still be available because his wife was held hostage elsewhere
Graham [1982] 74 Cr App R 235
First establishment
d strangled his wife after threats made by his homosexual lover. Not reasonable
Bowen [1996] 2 Cr App R 157
- RP shares a relevant recognized mental illness, condition or disorder such as (PTSD)
- RP does not share d emotional stability, neuroise or unusual pliability or vulnerability does not amount to psychiatric disorder
- RP does not share d low IQ
Gac [2013] EWCA Crim 1472
- D imported cocaine at demand of husband
- D said she had battered womens syndrome
- Held – d did not suffer from BWS that overpowered the decision
Baker and Ward [1999] 2 Cr App R 355
- D committed a robbery in a store
- They had been told by drug dealers they owed money to
- They and their families had been threatened
- Held: merely engaging in criminal activity/ associating with criminals = assuming the risk
Sharp [1987] QB 583
- D committed robbery and UDAM after he was told his head would be blown off
- D guilty as he voluntarily joined the gang knowing it might bring pressure on him to commit an offence
Fitzpatrick [1977] NI
Robbery on behalf of IRA - no refence because D had voluntarily joined the IRA
Soon It was held that voluntary association with any criminal organization is a reason for refusing the defence
Hussain [2008] All ER (D) 92
D might not of been aware but he ought to have foreseen that he would come under pressure to assist his co-accused
Mullally [2012] EWCA Crim 687
CA reiterated the point that d who have allowed themselves through drug addiction to acquire a debt to criminals and who are then brought under pressure to commit offences of one kind or another, will not have a defence
