R v Abdul Hussain and Others [1999]

R v Abdul Hussain and Others [1999] Crim LR 570 is a notable case on the scope of the duress of circumstances defence, particularly in situations involving perceived threats from political persecution or violence. The defendants, Iraqi nationals, hijacked a plane in order to escape what they believed to be imminent danger from the Iraqi authorities. They feared that if they remained in Iraq or were returned there, they would face execution or serious harm due to the political situation at the time.

At trial, the defendants claimed that their actions were compelled by this peril and that hijacking the plane was the only means available to escape the threat. The central legal question was whether the defence of duress of circumstances could apply when the danger was not immediate in a temporal sense but was nonetheless pressing and unavoidable.

The Court of Appeal held that the defence was available in principle, clarifying that the threat in such cases need not be immediate (meaning occurring at that exact moment) but it must be imminent. In other words, the danger had to be impending and unavoidable unless the defendants acted as they did. The court also emphasised that the criminal act committed must be a reasonable and proportionate response to the threat.

This case is significant because it expanded the understanding of duress of circumstances to include situations where the harm is not happening instantaneously but is still urgent and unavoidable. R v Abdul Hussain confirmed that what matters is the closeness and reality of the peril, not whether the harm is occurring at the precise moment of the defendant’s actions, while still requiring proportionality between the danger faced and the unlawful act committed.