H418/01 - Duress and necessity
Learn when threats or dangerous circumstances can excuse an offence, identify the limits on duress, and distinguish the narrow operation of necessity from a general licence to choose a lesser harm.
Duress by threats
Duress concerns an offence committed under qualifying pressure: the defendant may intend the offence but claim that a serious threat excuses them. It does not normally deny mens rea, and a difficult personal choice is not automatically duress.
Duress by threats arises where another person’s threat compels the defendant to commit the offence. The threat must be of death or serious physical injury to the defendant, their immediate family, or someone for whom they reasonably feel responsible. Threats to property, reputation or income alone are insufficient. The defendant must genuinely and reasonably believe the threat exists and will be carried out.
R v Graham (1982) expresses the two-stage approach: did the defendant reasonably believe a qualifying threat impelled the conduct, and might a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing relevant characteristics have responded in that way? This is stricter about mistaken threats than self-defence’s honest-belief rule.
The threat must directly cause the offence charged. With threats, it must be connected to the demand to commit that offence; general fear of a dangerous person is insufficient. It need not be the sole motive, but it must genuinely operate on the decision. Original example: a gunman demands that Pat drive a vehicle containing stolen goods immediately or be shot. That can raise duress. Pat stealing groceries because a landlord threatens eviction presents hardship rather than this qualifying threat.
Once a sufficient evidential basis is raised, the prosecution must disprove duress beyond reasonable doubt. A fact finder need not accept a threat story without scrutiny. This defence can excuse an intended crime, so its constraints must be examined separately from proof of the offence.
Immediacy, escape and reasonable firmness
A qualifying threat must be operative when the crime occurs, with death or serious violence expected immediately or almost immediately if the defendant refuses. A remote threat that allows reasonable avoidance does not establish the defence.
In R v Hasan (2005), the House of Lords stressed the limits, including no reasonable avenue of escape and the objective assessment of the defendant’s response. A safe opportunity to seek police help or evade the threatening person can defeat duress. This is fact-sensitive: theoretical access to a telephone is not necessarily a safe escape when a gunman is watching the defendant’s family. Ask whether avoidance was reasonably available without the threatened harm.
The reasonable-firmness test prevents the defendant’s own unusually weak resistance from becoming the legal standard. R v Bowen (1996) allows relevant characteristics such as age, sex and some physical disabilities or recognised psychiatric conditions affecting susceptibility to threats. Mere timidity, emotional instability, low intelligence alone, or addiction does not set a lower standard of courage. The comparator is sober.
Original application: a fourteen-year-old ordered at gunpoint to carry stolen goods is compared with a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing the relevant age, rather than an adult soldier. If the same threat allows two days to go safely to the police, the escape question becomes decisive. Neither youth nor fear abolishes the avoidance requirement.
The correct reasoning therefore links the threat’s timing, the realistic alternatives and the legally relevant characteristics. “Anyone would be scared” does not answer whether the crime was a response that a sober person of reasonable firmness might have made.
Excluded offences and self-induced risk
Duress is a complete defence only where the law allows it. Its strict limits can defeat the defence even when the threat and fear are credible.
R v Howe (1987) confirms that duress is unavailable for murder, including for a secondary participant. R v Gotts (1992) confirms that it is also unavailable for attempted murder. Treason involving the sovereign’s death is another established exclusion. The law will not normally excuse deliberate killing on the ground that another person threatened the killer. Duress is not a partial defence reducing murder to manslaughter; other homicide defences have their own requirements.
Hasan also excludes reliance where the defendant voluntarily associated with criminals and knew or ought reasonably to have known that this exposed them to coercion into crime by threats of violence. The defendant need not foresee the exact offence ultimately demanded. The rule is about foreseeably exposing oneself to coercion, not declaring every person who has ever known a criminal incapable of duress.
Original comparison: Sam is abducted by strangers and ordered to steal at gunpoint. There is no voluntary association on these facts. Tori willingly acts as a driver for a violent criminal gang, knowing members coerce reluctant participants, and is later threatened into a burglary. The prior-association bar is a serious obstacle even if the later threat was immediate. Both cases still require the remaining elements and a permitted offence.
The connection with fault is different from intoxication. Here the defendant can possess the offence’s mens rea throughout; prior voluntary risk-taking can nevertheless remove the excuse. Keep the rule against self-induced duress separate from the question whether threats existed.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account