Duress Flashcards
(14 cards)
What are the stages of duress?
1.Duress by Threats: D is threatened with death/serious injury. Test: Was D compelled by fear? Would a sober person act the same?
2.Duress by Circumstances: D commits a crime due to threatening circumstances (not a direct threat).
3.Limitations: Duress isn’t available for murder or attempted murder. No safe escape or association with criminals.
What is the legal defence of duress/what is the definition
Duress is a common law defence where the d argues they were forced to commit a crime due to a serious threat or circumstances beyond their control.
It includes two forms: duress by threats and duress by circumstances.
What is duress by threats?
Duress by threats occurs when someone threatens the defendant with death or serious injury unless they commit a crime. The defence is only valid if the threat is the primary/main reason for the crime.
What is the test for duress by threats?and which case is it from
The two-part test from R v Graham:
- Was the D compelled to act as he did because he reasonably feared death or serious
injury? - If so, did he respond as the sober person of reasonable firmness sharing the
characteristics of the D would have done?
Was the D compelled to act as he did because he reasonably feared death or serious
injury?
R v Valderrama – Vega
No, because the threat of death or serious injury was not the primary reason for the defendant’s actions; other pressures like financial issues were also factors.
Was the D compelled to act as he did because he reasonably feared death or serious
injury?
Cole
No, because the defendant was not directly instructed to commit the crime by the person who threatened him, so there was no clear link between the threat and the crime.
Was the D compelled to act as he did because he reasonably feared death or serious
injury?
R v Hassan
No, because the defendant voluntarily associated with criminals, and duress is not available for those who choose to associate with violent individuals.
2) Did the D respond as a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics
of the D, would have done?
Bowen (1996):
No, the court held that the defendant’s low IQ was not a characteristic that could be taken into account, and a sober person of reasonable firmness would not have acted the same way.
What characteristics did Stuart Smith LJ identify as characteristics that can be taken into consideration
Age, sex, pregnancy, serious physical disability, a
recognised mental illness or psychiatric condition (not timidity/vulnerability)
What is duress by circumstances?
. Duress by circumstances occurs when the situation the defendant is in creates a threat of death or serious injury, compelling them to commit a crime. It is not caused by a direct threat from another person. Eg, a driver speeding through a red light to escape from an armed attacker
What is the test for duress by circumstances? And which case
It was first used in willer
1)Was the D compelled to act as he did because he reasonably feared thatotherwise death or serious injury would result?
2)If so, would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the D, have responded to those circumstances in the
same way as the D
What was the outcome of R v Conway (1988) regarding duress of circumstances?
D was able to use the defence of duress of circumstances, as he reasonably feared attack and drove recklessly to escape, even though the people following him were plainclothes police officers.
. What factors could invalidate the defence of duress?
• Safe escape or chance to call police – Duress not allowed if D had a safe way out (e.g. R v Gill).
• Self-induced duress – Duress not allowed if D joined a violent gang or put themselves in the risky situation (e.g. R v Hasan).
• No clear link to the crime – The threat must make D commit that exact crime (e.g. R v Cole).
• Not available for murder – Duress can’t be used to excuse murder, even in extreme cases (e.g. R v Dudley and Stephens).
What is the outcome if the duress defence succeeds or fails?
If duress succeeds, the defendant is acquitted.
If it fails, the defendant remains liable for the offence committed.
