- For a general discussion of the principles, see duress
In English law, duress is a defence which allows a limited excuse in favour of those who commit crimes because they are forced or compelled to do so against their will by the threats of another. Image File history File links Scale_of_justice. ...
English law is a formal term of art that describes the law for the time being in force in England and Wales. ...
This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ...
In many common law jurisdictions (e. ...
A hybrid offence or dual offence are the special offences in Canadian criminal law where the prosecution may choose whether to proceed with a summary offence or an indictment. ...
Regulatory offences are a class of crime in which the standard for proving culpability has been lowered so as not to require any fault elements. ...
A lesser included offense, in criminal law, is a crime for which all of the elements necessary to impose liability are also elements found in a more serious crime. ...
Actus reus is the action (or inaction, in the case of criminal negligence and similar crimes which are sometimes called acts of omission) which, in combination with the mens rea (guilty mind), produces criminal liability in common law based criminal law jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom. ...
In law, causation is the name given to the process of testing whether defendants should be fixed with liability for the outcome to their acts and omissions that injure or cause loss to others. ...
The mens rea is the Latin term for guilty mind used in the criminal law. ...
In the criminal law, intention is one of the three general classes of mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability crime. ...
In English criminal law, intention is one of the types of mens rea (Latin for guilty mind) that, when accompanied by an actus reus (Latin for guilty act) constitutes a crime. ...
In the criminal law, recklessness (sometimes also termed wilful blindness) is one of the three possible classes of mental state constituting mens rea (the Latin for guilty mind). To commit an offence of ordinary as opposed to strict liability, the prosecution must be able to prove both an actus reus...
Criminal negligence, in the realm of criminal common law, is a legal term of art for a state of mind which is careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or reckless; it is the mens rea part of a crime which, if occurring simultaneously with the actus reus, gives rise to criminal...
In the criminal law, corporate liability is an aspect of criminal vicarious liability and determines the extent to which a corporation as a fictitious person can be convicted of offences committed by the natural persons it employs. ...
The legal principle of vicarious liability applies to hold one person liable for the actions of another when engaged in some form of joint or collective activity. ...
In criminal law, strict liability is liability where mens rea (Latin for guilty mind) does not have to be proved in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for guilty act) although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the...
In the criminal law, an omission or failure to act will only constitute an actus reus (Latin for guilty act) and give rise to liability when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty. ...
Concurrence or Simultaneity is a legal term, from Western jurisprudence, referring to the simultaneous occurrence of actus reus (bad action) and mens rea (bad mind), which must be present for a crime to have occurred; except in crimes of strict liability. ...
Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for ignorance of the law is no excuse) is a public policy holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content...
An inchoate offense is a crime. ...
In English criminal law, incitement is an anticipatory common law offence and is the act of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime. ...
In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, so a natural person identified with the mind of a legal entity cannot conspire with the company alone. ...
An accessory is a person who assists in or conceals a crime, but does not actually participate in the commission of the crime. ...
The crime of attempt occurs when a person does an act amounting to more than mere preparation for a criminal offense, with specific intent to commit a crime, if that act tends but fails to effect the commission of the offense intended. ...
In criminal law, the doctrine of common purpose, common design or joint enterprise refers to the situation where two or more people embark on a project with a common purpose that results in the commission of a crime. ...
Categories: | ...
For the law in other criminal jurisdictions, see diminished responsibility. ...
The MNaghten Rules are used to establish insanity as an excuse to potential criminal liability, but the definitional criteria establish insanity in the legal and not the psychological sense. ...
For the discussion on general principles and policy, see necessity In English law, the defence of necessity recognises that there may be situations of such an overwhelming urgency, that a person must be allowed to respond by breaking the law. ...
For an description of the general principles, see provocation (legal). ...
In English criminal law, the defence of self-defence provides for the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves or others or to prevent any crime. ...
In criminal law, a common assault is a crime when the defendant either puts another in fear of injury or actually commits a battery. ...
In many common law jurisdictions, the crime of battery involves an injury or other contact upon the person of another in a manner likely to cause bodily harm. ...
It has been suggested that Assault causing bodily harm be merged into this article or section. ...
Grievous bodily harm or GBH is a type of assault resulting in, for example, broken bones or cuts to the skin. ...
This page is a candidate to be copied to Wikisource. ...
Corporate manslaughter is a term in English law for an act of homicide committed by a company. ...
Harassment refers to a wide spectrum of offensive behavior. ...
Under English law, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is the main statute covering damage to property. ...
The Malicious Damage Act of 1861 is a law now mostly concerned with damage to property in the transport sector of society. ...
Nuisance is a common law tort. ...
The Theft Act 1968 (1968 c. ...
Thief redirects to here. ...
Dishonesty is a term which in common usage may be defined as the act of being dishonest; to act without honesty; a lack of probity, to cheat, lying or being deliberately deceptive; lacking in integrity; to be knavish, perfidious, corrupt or treacherous; charlatanism or quackery. ...
TWOC is an acronym standing for Taken Without Owners Consent. ...
For the purposes of English law, deception is defined in s15(4) Theft Act 1968 and applies to the deception offences in the Theft Act 1968, and to the Theft Act 1978 and the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996. ...
In English law, the main deception offences are defined in the Theft Act 1968 (TA68), the Theft Act 1978 and the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996. ...
Blackmail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia /**/ @import /skins-1. ...
A cars handling is a description of the way the car performs, particularly during cornering. ...
The Theft Act 1978 supplemented to earlier Theft Act 1968. ...
Forgery is the process of making or adapting objects or documents (see false document), with the intention to deceive. ...
Computer crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia /**/ @import /skins-1. ...
Bribery is a crime defined by Blacks Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions as an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty. ...
Perjury is lying or making verifiably false statements under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. ...
Obstruction of justice, in a common law state, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. ...
Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated the criminal law. ...
A contract is any promise or set of promises made by one party to another for the breach of which the law provides a remedy. ...
In the common law, a tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. ...
Property law is the area of law that governs the various forms of ownership in real property (land as distinct from personal or movable possessions) and in personal property, within the common law legal system. ...
In the common law, a will or testament is a document by which a person (the testator) regulates the rights of others over his property or family after death. ...
The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of law which governs the management of personal affairs and the disposition of property of an individual in anticipation and the event of such persons incapacity or death, also known as the law of successions in civil law. ...
The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e. ...
Duress (coercion) (as a term of jurisprudence) is a possible defense, via excuse, by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law. ...
English law is a formal term of art that describes the law for the time being in force in England and Wales. ...
In jurisprudence, an excuse or justification is a form of immunity which must be distinguished from an exculpation. ...
Discussion
This is an exception to the general principle of criminal law which is that adults who choose to break the law are held responsible for the crimes that they commit. The rationale of the exception is that the choice is not wholly voluntary. The Law Commission (1977 at paras 2.44-2.46) recognised the logic that, if the defence was going to be allowed at all, it should be applied to all offences. But this recommendation has not been adopted because it is felt that, in the case of the most serious crimes such as murder, no threat to the defendant, however extreme, should excuse commission of the crime (Elliott; 1989). The defence is also open to abuse. Smith (1994 at p584) commented: - "...duress is a unique defence in that it is so much more likely than any other to depend on assertions which are peculiarly difficult for the prosecution to investigate or subsequently to disprove."
The prosecution's difficulty is of course the greater when, as is all too often the case, little detail of the alleged compulsion is disclosed by the defence until the trial is under way. To counter these problems, the Law Commission (1993 at paras 33-34) recommended that the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities be shifted to the defendant to establish duress, but there is no sign that Parliament will adopt this proposal. In the common law, burden of proof is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. ...
Burden of proof is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. ...
The principles
The threat In R v Singh (1973) 1 AER 122, the Court of Appeal held that a threat to expose the defendant's adultery would not be sufficient threat to overbear the will of an ordinary person. For these purposes, the defendant must have a reasonable and well-grounded fear of death or grievous bodily harm, usually in the form of specific threats directed at the defendant or his immediate family or someone close to him. In R v Graham (1982) 1 AER 801, the threat was immediately and directly made to the defendant. In the Australian case of R v Hurley & Murray (1967) VR 526 escaped criminals compelled H to dispose of two corpses by holding his wife hostage, such that the threats to her "would have been operative during the entire period of his absence" and "his only concern must have been for the safety of the woman". This includes threats to a ‘common law’ wife. Following R v Conway (1989) QB 290 and R v Wright (2000) Crim. LR 510, (where the threat related in part to the defendant's boyfriend) the specimen direction of the Judicial Studies Board suggests that the threat must be directed, if not to the defendant or a member of his immediate family, to a person for whose safety the defendant would reasonably regard himself as responsible which, if strictly applied, would be consistent with the rationale of the duress exception. Grievous bodily harm or GBH is a type of assault resulting in, for example, broken bones or cuts to the skin. ...
Causal link There must be a direct causal link between these threats and the defendant's decision to break the law. Thus, the defendant's normal inhibitions must be overwhelmed by his or her belief in the efficacy of the threat. This belief must be reasonable and genuine, i.e. the test is both subjective and objective in that the defendant's will must acutally have been overwhelmed, and a person of ordinary courage would also have felt compelled to act as directed.
Immediacy The circumstances in which the threats were made must also have offered no reasonable opportunity for evasive action. But, taken together, the questions of causation and immediacy have created a weakness in the limitations placed on the defence. In R v Hudson and Taylor (1971) 2 QB 202, two young women who had witnessed a serious assault were intimidated and refused to identify the attacker in court. They were charged with perjury but allowed a conditional discharge. The court was prepared to allow leniency because these women lived in a community where physical retaliation for co-operating with the police was routine, and they had no reasonable means, given their age, experience, and lack of physical strength, of avoiding the implementation of the threat. This weakened the requirement that the threat's implementation must be so imminent that the defendant had to decide in that moment whether to break the law, and it has given rise to cases such as R v Cole (1994) Crim. LR 582 in which a man robbed several building societies to avoid the threats of a debt collector. Simon Brown LJ. at p583 held that the peril relied on to support the plea of necessity lacked imminence, and the degree of directness and immediacy required of the link between the suggested peril and the offence charged. The one making the threats had not nominated the crimes to be committed by the defendant. He had simply indicated that he wanted the defendant to repay the debt which would not necessarily involve the commission of an offence. Perjury is lying or making verifiably false statements under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. ...
The characteristics of the reasonable person In R v Bowen (1996) 2 Cr. App. R. 157, the Court of Appeal held person with a low IQ, short of mental impairment or mental defectiveness, was not necessarily less courageous or less able to withstand threats and pressure than an ordinary person. The relevant test had two elements: - (i) Was the defendant impelled to act as he did because he feared death or serious physical injury?
- (ii) If so, did he respond as a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing the characteristics of the defendant would have done?
Stuart-Smith LJ. gave comprehensive guidance as to which characteristics might be relevant in the jury's consideration: age, sex, physical disability or recognised mental illness might limit a person's ability to act in self-defence, but the fact that the defendant was more vulnerable, timid or susceptible to threats than a normal person were not characteristics to give the reasonable person. Also excluded would be self-induced incapacity due to drunkenness or drug-taking. The reasonable man or reasonable person standard is a legal fiction that originated in the development of the common law. ...
Duress by circumstances There have been an increasing number of cases pleading duress arising from the general pressure of circumstances, whether arising directly from human action or not. To that extent, this subset of duress seeks to borrow some of the language of necessity. In R v Conway (1988) 3 AER 1025, the Court of Appeal dealt with a charge of reckless driving where the defendant had fled from police officers. His passenger had recently been attacked by a man with a shotgun, and screamed at the defendant to "drive off" when he saw the plain-clothed officers running toward the car. The court held that to establish "duress of circumstances", it was necessary for him to drive as he did believing it necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury to himself or another person. As evidence, the accused must be able to point to an "objective danger" or at least satisfy the requirement of reasonable belief. As a gloss, Woolf LJ. noted that : In criminal law, necessity is a possible excuse for breaking the law. ...
- "Whether 'duress of circumstances' is called 'duress' or 'necessity' does not matter. What is important is that, whatever it is called, it is subject to the same limitations as the 'do this or else' species of duress."
In R v Martin (1989) 1 AER 652 the defendant who drove while disqualified, claimed that it was necessary for him to drive his son to work, because he feared that his mentally ill wife might commit suicide if her son did not arrive at work on time. Simon Brown J. defined the defence as pressure on the accused's will arising either from the wrongful threats or violence of another, or from other objective dangers threatening the accused or others. The requirements were that: - (i) "from an objective standpoint, the accused can be said to be acting reasonably and proportionately in order to avoid a threat of death or serious injury";
- (ii) a jury should determine whether the accused was "impelled to act as he did because of a result of what he reasonably believed to be the situation, he had good cause to fear ...death or serious physical injury"; and
- (iii) a jury should also determine whether "a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the accused, [would] have responded to that situation" in the same manner.
Thus, in DPP v Bell (1992) Crim. LR 176 the accused successfully pleaded duress of circumstances to driving with excess alcohol because, following an incident in a pub which caused him to fear for his physical safety, he escaped in his car, only driving a short distance to safety and then abandoning the criminal activity as soon as reasonably possible. While in R v Baker and Wilkins (1997) Crim LR 497 (CA) a child's mother and another broke down the door to the father's house to recover the child from his possession. The action was being taken to defend the child so three defences were raised: - s5(2)(b) Criminal Damage Act 1971 which allows a reasonable excuse as a defence to the damage of property. It was held that a child is not property capable of being defended for the purposes of the section.
- self-defence which includes the defence of others both inherently and through the use of reasonable force to prevent the commission of a crime under s3 Criminal Law Act 1967.
- duress of circumstances. The court held that duress did not include threats or the fear of long-term psychological injury even though that might be serious psychological injury. Since there were other lawful remedies other than immediate self-help, duress was denied.
The danger must be such that the accused cannot reasonably, taking into account any of his or her relevant characteristics, be expected to act otherwise. In R v Pommell (1995) 2 Cr. App. R. 607 the defendant was charged with possession of an illegal firearm, a sub-machine gun, which he claimed to have taken from another person in order to prevent that other from using it and to hand it to the police. There was some doubt as to how long the weapon had been in his possession, which resulted in his conviction because the jury decided that he had not acted as soon as was reasonable in the circumstances. In R v Abdul Hussain and Others (1999) Crim. LR 570 considered the requirement that the threat be imminent and operative even though its execution is not immediate. The defendants hijacked a plane in order to escape death at the hands of 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. The threat need not be immediate, only imminent. Under English law, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is the main statute covering damage to property. ...
In English criminal law, the defence of self-defence provides for the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves or others or to prevent any crime. ...
Gang membership The most recent cases have involved situations where the defendant: - (i) failed to escape from the threats when he or she could have done so, and/or
- (ii) put him or her self in a position in which he was likely to be subjected to threats.
In R v Hasan (formerly R v Z (2003) (2005) UKHL 22 the defendant was the driver for a group that organised prostitution and had connections with a second organisation of violent drug dealers. He was charged with burglary in circumstances where he and his family had been threatened, and he had been accompanied to the scene of the crime by an armed man. In the earlier case of R v Fitzpatrick (1977) NI 20, involving the IRA, Lowry LCJ, said at p 33: - "A person may become associated with a sinister group of men with criminal objectives and coercive methods of ensuring that their lawless enterprises are carried out and thereby voluntarily expose himself to illegal compulsion, whether or not the group is or becomes a proscribed organisation… if a person voluntarily exposes and submits himself, as the appellant did, to illegal compulsion, he cannot rely on the duress to which he has voluntarily exposed himself as an excuse either in respect of the crimes he commits against his will or in respect of his continued but unwilling association with those capable of exercising upon him the duress which he calls in aid."
In cases involving less serious criminality, R v Sharp (1987) QB 853 involved a gang of robbers, while R v Shepherd (1987) 86 Cr. App R 47 involved a group of shoplifters, the court held: - "...but in my judgment the defence of duress is not available to an accused who voluntarily exposes and submits himself to illegal compulsion. It is not merely a matter of joining in a criminal enterprise; it is a matter of joining in a criminal enterprise of such a nature that the defendant appreciated the nature of the enterprise itself and the attitudes of those in charge of it, so that when he was in fact subjected to compulsion he could fairly be said by a jury to have voluntarily exposed himself and submitted himself to such compulsion."
Thus, if the defendant knows what the group does and that some violent people are involved, he or she cannot rely on the violence threatened as duress. But in R v Baker and Ward (1999) 2 Cr. App. R. 335 this was slightly modified at p344: "What a defendant has to be aware of is the risk that the group might try to coerce him into committing criminal offences of the type for which he is being tried by the use of violence or threats of violence." (On whether this is a subjective or objective test, see Ashworth: 2003.) The Lords in Hasan clearly stated at para 37: - "Nothing should turn on foresight of the manner in which, in the event, the dominant party chooses to exploit the defendant's subservience. There need not be foresight of coercion to commit crimes, although it is not easy to envisage circumstances in which a party might be coerced to act lawfully. In holding that there must be foresight of coercion to commit crimes of the kind with which the defendant is charged, R v Baker and Ward mis-stated the law."
Homicide In general, courts do not accept a defence of duress when harm done by the defendant, such as murder, is greater than the court's perception of the harm threatened. This is a test of proportionality. In Howe (1987) AC 417 the court held that the jury should consider: A court is an official, public forum which a sovereign establishes by lawful authority to adjudicate disputes, and to dispense civil, labour, administrative and criminal justice under the law. ...
A jury is a sworn body of persons convened to render a rational, impartial verdict and a finding of fact on a legal question officially submitted to them, or to set a penalty or judgment in a jury trial of a court of law. ...
- Whether the defendant acted as he did because he honestly believed that his life was in immediate danger (a subjective test)
- Would a reasonable person of ordinary courage sharing the defendant's characteristics have responded in the same way to the threats? (an objective test)
Howe was a member of a gang that tortured and strangled a man. On a second occasion, Howe strangled the victim. He claimed to have acted out of fear for one Murray who, through threatened and actual violence, had gained control of the group. Previously, in DPP for N. Ireland v Lynch (1975) AC 653, the Lords had held by a majority that duress was available to an accomplice. On this occasion, the Lords held that one of the relevant public policies underpinning the criminal law must be to protect innocent lives and to set a standard of behaviour which ordinary men and women are expected to observe if they are to avoid criminal responsibility. In cases where the choice is between the threat of death or serious injury and deliberately taking an innocent life, a reasonable man might reflect that one innocent human life is at least as valuable as his own or that of his loved one. In such a case a man cannot claim that he is choosing the lesser of two evils. Rather he is adopting the understandable but morally dubious principle that the end justifies the means. Similarly, R v Gotts (1992) 2 AC 412 held that duress is not a defence to attempted murder. In the United States, duress can never be a defence to murder, no matter what the injuries or the degree of loss threatened. The reasonable man or reasonable person standard is a legal fiction that originated in the development of the common law. ...
At law, an accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offence. ...
Public policy or ordre public is the body of fundamental principles that underpin the operation of legal systems in each state. ...
Murder is both a legal and a moral term, that are not always coincident. ...
References - Ashworth. (2003). "Commentary on R v Safi" Criminal Law Review 721.
- Elliott, (1989). "Necessity, Duress and Self-Defence" Criminal Law Review 611.
- Law Commission (1977). Criminal Law. Report on Defences of General Application Law Commission Report No. 83. Cm 556.
- Law Commission (1993). Legislajting the Criminal Code. Offences against the Person and General Principles. Law Commission Report No. 218. Cm 2370.
- Smith J. C. (1994). "Commentary on R v Cole" Criminal Law Review 582.
|
Feeds |
Contact