DURESS BY THREATS
DEFINITION: a defence in criminal law: the defendant has been effectively forced to commit the
crime by the threats made to him.
NOT A DEFENCE FOR: murder (R v Howe), attempted murder (R v Gotts) and treason.
TESTS FOR DURESS: R v Hasan set the rules for the 6-part test:
1. There must be a threat to cause death or serious injury
2. The threat must be directed to the defendant, their immediate family, or someone close to
them
3. Whether the defendant acted reasonably and in light of the threats will be judged
objectively
4. The threats relate to the crime committed by the D
5. There was no evasive action the defendant could have taken
6. The defendant cannot use the defence if they have voluntarily laid themselves open to
threats
THE THREAT
The threat has to be of death or serious injury, it must also be imminent or immediately likely to
have serious consequences.
R v Valderrama-Vega – D was unable to show that the threat was imminent or immediately likely to
have serious consequence.
R v Hammond – D was unable to show that the threat was imminent or immediately likely to have
serious consequence.
DIRECTED TOWARDS:
Must be directed to the defendant, or immediate family, or someone close to them, or a person
whose safety they would reasonably regard themselves as responsible.
ACTING REASONABLY
R v Graham set out that if the defence should succeed, the jury must consider the two-stage test:
1. Was the defendant compelled to act as they did because they reasonably believed that
they had good cause to fear serious injury or death?
2. Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the accused,
have responded in the same way?
NOMINATED CRIMES
The defence can only be used if the threats are made in order to make the defendant commit a
specific offence. The offence must be the one stated in the threat.
R v Cole – The threats were made in relation to repaying loan money made by a loan shark, there
was a insufficient connection between this and the crimes he committed (robbery of building
societies)
EVASIVE ACTION
Duress can only be used as a defence if the defendant is put in a situation where they have no safe
avenue of escape.
R v Gill – The claim that he had been threatened unless he stole a lorry was not allowed as there
was a period of time during which he was left alone so could have raised alarm. There was a safe
avenue of escape.
OPEN TO THREATS
The defendant cannot use the defence if they have voluntarily laid themselves open to threats.
R v Shepherd – The threat of violence when D tried to leave a shoplifting gang was not duress as he
had opened himself up to threats by joining a criminal enterprise.
DEFINITION: a defence in criminal law: the defendant has been effectively forced to commit the
crime by the threats made to him.
NOT A DEFENCE FOR: murder (R v Howe), attempted murder (R v Gotts) and treason.
TESTS FOR DURESS: R v Hasan set the rules for the 6-part test:
1. There must be a threat to cause death or serious injury
2. The threat must be directed to the defendant, their immediate family, or someone close to
them
3. Whether the defendant acted reasonably and in light of the threats will be judged
objectively
4. The threats relate to the crime committed by the D
5. There was no evasive action the defendant could have taken
6. The defendant cannot use the defence if they have voluntarily laid themselves open to
threats
THE THREAT
The threat has to be of death or serious injury, it must also be imminent or immediately likely to
have serious consequences.
R v Valderrama-Vega – D was unable to show that the threat was imminent or immediately likely to
have serious consequence.
R v Hammond – D was unable to show that the threat was imminent or immediately likely to have
serious consequence.
DIRECTED TOWARDS:
Must be directed to the defendant, or immediate family, or someone close to them, or a person
whose safety they would reasonably regard themselves as responsible.
ACTING REASONABLY
R v Graham set out that if the defence should succeed, the jury must consider the two-stage test:
1. Was the defendant compelled to act as they did because they reasonably believed that
they had good cause to fear serious injury or death?
2. Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the accused,
have responded in the same way?
NOMINATED CRIMES
The defence can only be used if the threats are made in order to make the defendant commit a
specific offence. The offence must be the one stated in the threat.
R v Cole – The threats were made in relation to repaying loan money made by a loan shark, there
was a insufficient connection between this and the crimes he committed (robbery of building
societies)
EVASIVE ACTION
Duress can only be used as a defence if the defendant is put in a situation where they have no safe
avenue of escape.
R v Gill – The claim that he had been threatened unless he stole a lorry was not allowed as there
was a period of time during which he was left alone so could have raised alarm. There was a safe
avenue of escape.
OPEN TO THREATS
The defendant cannot use the defence if they have voluntarily laid themselves open to threats.
R v Shepherd – The threat of violence when D tried to leave a shoplifting gang was not duress as he
had opened himself up to threats by joining a criminal enterprise.
