Duress by Threats

Question 1

Duress Definition

Answer 1

Duress is where there is a threat of harm if defendant does not commit a particular crime. Duress is a completed defence, if the defendant proved there was duress.

Question 2

R v Hasan

Answer 2

The case of R V hasan establish 6 part test in order to establish duress

1. there must be a threat to cause death or serious injury .
2. the threat must be directed against the defendant or their immediate family
3. Whether the defendant acted reasonably in the light of the threat will be judged objectively
4. The threats relates directly to the crime committed by the defendant
5. There was no evasion action the defendant could taken
6. Did the defendant lay himself open to threats

Question 3

There must be a threat to cause death or serious injury

Answer 3

There must be a threat to cause death or serious injury . The threat has to be of death or serious injury this can be seen in the case of R v Valderrama-vaga where The appellant had been convicted for importing drugs. He had done so because he had received threats of serious violence against him and his family if he did not comply. There were also threats to reveal his homosexual activities to his wife. He also received financial rewards for his action. The trial judge refused to allow the defence of duress to be put before the jury. It was held The appeal was allowed. Threats to reveal his homosexuality alone would be insufficient to find the defence but could be taken into account when coupled with threats of serious personal violence. The threat must be imminent and effective as in the case of R V hudson and Taylor.

Question 4

Threat must be directed against the defendant or their immediate family.

Answer 4

The second element of the hasan test is the Threat must be directed against the defendant or their immediate family. This element can only be satisfied if the threat was directed at the defendant, their immediate family, someone close them or a person foe whose safety they would reasonably care about

Question 5

whether the defendant acted reasonably in light of the threats

Answer 5

The next element the Hasan requirement is whether the defendant acted reasonably in light of the threats will be judged objectively This has been established through the graham test. The first part of the test was the defendant compelled to act as they aid because they reasonably believed they had good cause to fear serious injury they must genuinely believe in the effectiveness of the threat

the second element of the test If so, would a sober person of reasonable firmness having the characteristics of the accused have responded the same

Question 6

The threats relates directly to the crime committed by the defendant

Answer 6

The next element if the hasan test is The threats relates directly to the crime committed by the defendant this is seen in the case of R v Cole where Cole D claimed he and his girlfriend (and child) had been threatened in order to repay money that he owed. During the threat he was hit with a baseball bat.he did not have money so committed two robberies to pay his debt.

Question 7

There was no evasive action the defendant could have taken

Answer 7

There was no evasive action the defendant could have taken as stated by Lord Bingham the defendant may excused his criminal conduct on grounds on grounds of duress only if there was no evasive action he could reasonably have been expected to take the immediacy of the threat and possibly of seeking police protection are important are important matters as in the case of Hudson and Taylor where it was allowed to use the defence of duress because the police may not have been able to provide effective protection for this. Additionally, his age was a factor.