R v Graham [1982]
Share
R v Graham [1982] 1 All ER 801 revolved around the legal focus rested on criminal liability, duress, and the relevance of drug and alcohol consumption in the context of murder.
The defendant lived with his wife and his violent homosexual lover, Mr King, and suffered from anxiety attacks for which he took Valium. Both the defendant and his wife had experienced violence from Mr King. In a disturbing turn of events, King and the defendant, under the influence of alcohol and Valium, hatched a plot to harm the defendant's wife.
The defendant, facing threats from King, lured his wife to the flat, where King subsequently strangled her with a flex from a coffee percolator. The defendant assisted in the act and helped dispose of the body. During the trial, the defendant raised the defences of duress and intoxication. He argued that his anxiety and Valium intake made him more susceptible to threats, and therefore, the jury should consider his particular characteristics.
However, the trial judge directed the jury to apply an entirely objective test to determine whether the threats were sufficient to overbear the defendant's will. The jury convicted the defendant, leading to his appeal. The defendant contended that the judge should have allowed the jury to consider his specific characteristics in relation to the defence of duress.
The Court of Appeal, in upholding the conviction, established a two-pronged approach:
The court clarified that voluntary consumption of alcohol or drugs, and the subsequent erosion of the defendant's will to resist, should not be taken into account. The focus remained on whether the threats, in and of themselves, were sufficient to cause a reasonable person with the defendant's characteristics to act in the same manner. This ruling underscored the importance of maintaining an objective standard in assessing claims of duress and highlighted the need for a sober and reasonable person's perspective when evaluating the defendant's actions in response to threats.
The defendant lived with his wife and his violent homosexual lover, Mr King, and suffered from anxiety attacks for which he took Valium. Both the defendant and his wife had experienced violence from Mr King. In a disturbing turn of events, King and the defendant, under the influence of alcohol and Valium, hatched a plot to harm the defendant's wife.
The defendant, facing threats from King, lured his wife to the flat, where King subsequently strangled her with a flex from a coffee percolator. The defendant assisted in the act and helped dispose of the body. During the trial, the defendant raised the defences of duress and intoxication. He argued that his anxiety and Valium intake made him more susceptible to threats, and therefore, the jury should consider his particular characteristics.
However, the trial judge directed the jury to apply an entirely objective test to determine whether the threats were sufficient to overbear the defendant's will. The jury convicted the defendant, leading to his appeal. The defendant contended that the judge should have allowed the jury to consider his specific characteristics in relation to the defence of duress.
The Court of Appeal, in upholding the conviction, established a two-pronged approach:
- The jury should determine whether the defendant was impelled to act because he reasonably believed that King's threats would result in serious harm or death.
- The jury should assess whether a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the defendant's characteristics, would have responded to the threats by participating in the killing.
The court clarified that voluntary consumption of alcohol or drugs, and the subsequent erosion of the defendant's will to resist, should not be taken into account. The focus remained on whether the threats, in and of themselves, were sufficient to cause a reasonable person with the defendant's characteristics to act in the same manner. This ruling underscored the importance of maintaining an objective standard in assessing claims of duress and highlighted the need for a sober and reasonable person's perspective when evaluating the defendant's actions in response to threats.
