R v Baker and Wilkins [1997]

R v Baker and Wilkins [1997] Crim LR 497 (CA) is a case that clarified the limits of the duress of circumstances defence, particularly regarding the type of harm that can justify unlawful conduct. The case arose from a child custody dispute in which the child’s mother, accompanied by another person, broke down the door to the father’s home. Their aim was to retrieve the child, but their actions led to criminal charges. At trial, three possible defences were raised, one of which was duress of circumstances.

The defendants argued that they acted out of fear for the child’s wellbeing, specifically that remaining with the father would cause the child long-term psychological harm. They claimed that this perceived danger compelled them to break into the property, and therefore their actions should be excused under the doctrine of duress of circumstances.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that duress, whether arising from threats or from circumstances, only applies to situations involving threats of death or serious physical injury. It does not extend to fears of purely psychological or emotional harm, even if those fears are genuine. The court also stressed that the defence cannot succeed where lawful alternatives are available. In this case, there were legal remedies available to address the custody dispute, such as applying to the court, rather than resorting to criminal acts.

This case is significant because it draws a clear boundary around the scope of duress of circumstances, excluding threats of long-term psychological injury from the category of harms that can justify the defence. R v Baker and Wilkins therefore serves as an important reminder that the defence is strictly limited to preventing immediate threats of death or serious bodily harm, and it cannot be invoked where lawful solutions exist.