Duress By Threats

Question 0

Hasan (2006)

Answer 0

Threat must be directed at defendant, his immediate family, somebody close to him or somebody for who, he would regard himself responsible. If D foresaw being subjected to threats in order to commit a crime the defence of duress will not apply.

Question 1

Graham (1982)

Answer 1

Two part test:

1. Threat limb - did D have reasonable belief in, and good cause to fear, threat of death or serious injury?
2. Response limb - a person of reasonable firmness may also have committed the crime in response to the threat

Question 2

Safi (2003)

Answer 2

Plane was hijacked and landed at Stanstead, hijackers said they feared persecution by the Taliban in Afghanistan, it was held that reasonable belief in the threat is sufficient whether or not it exists.

Question 3

Martin (2000)

Answer 3

D committed two burglaries, claimed duress, he was in a schizoid-affective state, held that psychiatric disorders wouldn’t usually be taken into account when assessing reasonableness of belief.

Question 4

Bowen (1996)

Answer 4

Age, sex, pregnancy, serious physical disability and mental illness/psychiatric disorders may be taken into account when assessing reasonableness of belief. Simple abnormal vulnerability, characteristics due to self abuse or low IQ would not be taken into account.

Question 5

Hudson and Taylor (1971)

Answer 5

D’s were jurors, threatened during a trial, held that the threat need not be immediate, it was sufficient that at the time their will was destroyed by the threats even though the threatened injury wouldn’t happen immediately.

Question 6

Valderrama-Vega (1985)

Answer 6

D imported cocaine from Columbia for three reasons; being threatened with violence, serious debts and a threat to disclose his homosexuality. Held that as long as threats of violence were some of the reason duress may apply.