Six Cases on Duress by Circumstances in Criminal Law
Share
The defence of duress by circumstances has emerged in cases where individuals claim to be compelled to act due to general pressure arising from various circumstances. This subset of duress incorporates some elements of necessity. Six notable cases shed light on this defence:
R v Conway [1988] 3 AER 1025
In this case, the defendant faced a charge of reckless driving after fleeing from police officers. His passenger, recently attacked with a shotgun, urged him to drive off upon seeing plain-clothed officers approaching. The court established the concept of duress of circumstances, requiring the defendant to act believing it necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury. Woolf LJ emphasised that, whether called duress or necessity, the defence is subject to the same limitations as the traditional do this or else duress.
R v Martin [1989] 1 AER 652
The defendant, driving while disqualified, argued the necessity to drive his son to work, fearing his mentally ill wife's potential suicide if their son did not arrive on time. Simon Brown J defined the defence as arising from wrongful threats, violence, or other objective dangers. The requirements included the accused acting reasonably to avoid a threat, having a good cause to fear death or serious injury, and a jury determining if a sober person of reasonable firmness would respond similarly.
DPP v Bell [1992] Crim LR 176
In this case, the accused pleaded duress of circumstances to driving with excess alcohol. Following an incident in a pub that made him fear for his safety, he escaped in his car, driving a short distance to safety and abandoning the criminal activity promptly. The court accepted the defence, highlighting the requirement that the accused couldn't reasonably act otherwise given the imminent danger.
R v Baker and Wilkins [1997] Crim LR 497 (CA)
In this case involving child custody, the court rejected the duress defence. When a child's mother and another broke down the door to the father's house, three defences were raised, including duress of circumstances. The court held that duress did not cover threats or the fear of long-term psychological injury. Since other lawful remedies were available, duress was denied.
R v Pommell [1995] 2 Cr App R 607
In a firearm possession case, the defendant claimed to have taken the weapon from another person to prevent its use and hand it to the police. The court convicted him, emphasising the need to act as soon as reasonably possible in response to the circumstances.
R v Abdul Hussain and Others [1999] Crim LR 570
The defendants hijacked a plane to escape perceived imminent peril from the Iraqi authorities. The court held that the defence was available as long as the crime was a reasonable and proportionate response to an imminent peril of death or serious injury, emphasising that the threat need not be immediate, only imminent.
R v Conway [1988] 3 AER 1025
In this case, the defendant faced a charge of reckless driving after fleeing from police officers. His passenger, recently attacked with a shotgun, urged him to drive off upon seeing plain-clothed officers approaching. The court established the concept of duress of circumstances, requiring the defendant to act believing it necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury. Woolf LJ emphasised that, whether called duress or necessity, the defence is subject to the same limitations as the traditional do this or else duress.
R v Martin [1989] 1 AER 652
The defendant, driving while disqualified, argued the necessity to drive his son to work, fearing his mentally ill wife's potential suicide if their son did not arrive on time. Simon Brown J defined the defence as arising from wrongful threats, violence, or other objective dangers. The requirements included the accused acting reasonably to avoid a threat, having a good cause to fear death or serious injury, and a jury determining if a sober person of reasonable firmness would respond similarly.
DPP v Bell [1992] Crim LR 176
In this case, the accused pleaded duress of circumstances to driving with excess alcohol. Following an incident in a pub that made him fear for his safety, he escaped in his car, driving a short distance to safety and abandoning the criminal activity promptly. The court accepted the defence, highlighting the requirement that the accused couldn't reasonably act otherwise given the imminent danger.
R v Baker and Wilkins [1997] Crim LR 497 (CA)
In this case involving child custody, the court rejected the duress defence. When a child's mother and another broke down the door to the father's house, three defences were raised, including duress of circumstances. The court held that duress did not cover threats or the fear of long-term psychological injury. Since other lawful remedies were available, duress was denied.
R v Pommell [1995] 2 Cr App R 607
In a firearm possession case, the defendant claimed to have taken the weapon from another person to prevent its use and hand it to the police. The court convicted him, emphasising the need to act as soon as reasonably possible in response to the circumstances.
R v Abdul Hussain and Others [1999] Crim LR 570
The defendants hijacked a plane to escape perceived imminent peril from the Iraqi authorities. The court held that the defence was available as long as the crime was a reasonable and proportionate response to an imminent peril of death or serious injury, emphasising that the threat need not be immediate, only imminent.
