Defences cases

Wilson 2007

• D (13 yr old boy) murdered his mother under instruction of his father

• Held that duress cannot be a defence to murder

• Reinforces rule from R v Howe (1987) - duress never a defence to murder even when young or under extreme pressure

• Highlights rigidity of duress doctrine + potential disproprtionate harshness

Sharp [1987]

• D joined gang of armed robbers

• Gang leader shot and killed the postmaster

• Argued duress saying that gang leader threatened to shoot him if he backed out

• Held that duress not available as he voluntarily associated with a criminal gang - foresaw the risk of coercion

Hasan [2005]

• Hasan associated with a violent drug dealer known for serious offending

• Threatened Hasan and his family

• Coerced into committing an aggravated burglary

• Held that duress unavailable → D who voluntarily associates with criminals and ought to have foreseen the risk of coercion cannot rely on duress

• Test - it is enough that D foresaw or should have foreseen a general risk of being compelled to commit criminal offence

Baker and Wilkins (1997)

• D was a mother and her partner

• Believed the mothers child was being abused by the childs father

• Forced entry into the fathers house causing criminal damage

• Duress of circumstances not available → CA held that defence requires an imminent threat of death or serious injury → threat must be directed at the defendant or someone whom they reasonably feel responsible

• Reinforces that duress only applies where D reasonably believes they face death or serious physical injury

Roger and Rose (1998)

• Prisoners escaped from prison

• One of them received news that his former partner had died - became suicidal

• D claimed that as a result of their depression that they would have committed suicide so escaping was necessary

• Duress of circumstances not available as threat must come externally not from their own internal mental condition

Cole [1994]

• D borrowed from money lenders and unable to pay it back

• Threatened his family and in response committed the robbery of two building societies

• Claimed defence but money lenders did not ask him to rob the banks, it was his own choice - no causal link so duress unavailable → Nexus Requirement whereby the threat must direct D to commit the specific offence

Bowen 1997

• Bowen obtained goods on credit using false information

• Claimed he only did so because he was threatened

• Had a low IQ arguing this made him more susceptible to threats

• CA held that low IQ is not a relevant characteristic for the purposes of the duress test → rather it is age, physical disability, mental illness, gender

RE A (Children) [2001]

• Conjoined twins

• Jodie had a functioning heart and lungs and Mary survived only because of Jodie

• Without intervention both would die

• Surgical seperation would save Jodie but kill Mary

• Held that the doctors would not be guilty of murder due to a form of necessity

• Test: act needed to avoid inevitable and irreparable evil → no more should be done than reasonably necessary → harm inflicted must not be disproportionate