Here are the key areas of law and discussion points you should cover in a high-level response: Areas of law: - Duress of threats - Duress of circumstances - Necessity - Limitations e.g. no defence for murder, self-induced duress Discussion points: - Unfairness of no defence for murder - Problems with imminence requirement - Criticisms of Graham test - Overlap between duress and necessity - Arguments for reform e.g. partial defence, subjective approach - Relevant cases to support points e.g. Hasan, Gotts, Wilson You should be able to develop balanced arguments

1. Starter:
Could D argue duress in each of these situations?
D is told that unless he does as
DD hijacked a plane in
asked, he may be killed and/or his
Afghanistan, forcing it to fly to
family informed of his debts and
the UK, and claiming they were
his homosexuality. He imports
fleeing the Taliban after fearing
drugs to the UK.
for their lives. The plane stopped
in Moscow and then flew on the
UK. They held 150 people hostage
at a UK airport for 3 days.
D is told that unless he pays back
his debt to the local money lender,
he, his girlfriend and his child may
suffer physical harm. He robs two
post offices
D is married, and living with his
gay lover, who can be violent. One
night the lover puts a thin wire
D is told that unless he does as he round the neck of the wife and
is asked, his affair with another hands the other end to D, telling
woman will be revealed. He takes him to pull. D, worried that the
part in a robbery lover may attack him, does so.

2. Duress of Threats
What is it? How does it work?
Kill my sister?
Scenario: Take my ID card from me and chop it up in front
of me?
Mr Hill calls me into his office
and tells me that if I don‟t Ban me from drinking coffee for the next 6
steal all the exam papers from months?
the examination office in the Break both my legs?
next 24 hours, so that I can
help all the Law students cheat Rather than telling me to steal the papers, Mr
Hill tells me to do everything in my power to make
and get fantastic grades, he sure that the Law students do brilliantly or he‟ll
will: break my legs. I decide to steal the papers.
Threatens to shoot three people passing the
school, if I do not steal the papers
Tells me that I have two months to accomplish
the theft, or he‟ll kill me
Tells me he‟ll kill me, but as I am schizophrenic, I
do not realise that he is joking and think that he is
acting on behalf of the little green men who talk to
me, and steal the papers.

3. Scope of the Defence
Thinking back to AS...
There are two offences to which duress cannot be a defence...
or
Why does the Law Com want to change the
law back?
DPP for NI v Lynch

4. Key Case:
R v Howe 1987
1. Why does Hailsham think that duress should not
be a defence to murder?
2. How does he explain the anomaly of duress being
a defence to an s.18 wounding, but not to murder,
where the s.18 wounding is sufficient for MR
(“intention to commit GBH”)?
3. Why does Griffith think that there should be no
defence to murder?
4. Why does he say that attempted murder should
also be excluded from the defence?
5. Is this ratio or obiter? Why?
6. What is the „compromise‟ solution? What do you
think of it? Why?

5. Applying the Law
R v Ashlea Wilson 2007

7. ... Applying the persuasive precedent
R v Gotts 1992
“intent of attempted murder is more evil
than that required of a murderer”
Sentencing should be used instead
Student Thinking (AO2):
How fair is this approach to the law? Should the court be able to take into
account the characteristics of D and who is doing the threatening in
assessing whether or not D may use duress as a defence to attempted
murder?

8. Starter:
Below is a paragraph summing up what we did last lesson...
Duress is a general defence, and applies to all offences apart from murder andThere,
is a general defence, and applies to all offences apart from murder.
attempted murder. There, according to Howe, it results in reduces D‟s liability. This
according to Whybrow, it results in a partial defence andno defence and reduces D‟s
liability. This is because D should sacrifice themselves. This can lead to unfairness,
is because D should be willing to be willing to sacrifice themselves. This can lead to
as D can have D can have no defence even when he is young (Gotts; Wilson).
unfairness, as no defence even when he is young (Gotts; Wilson).
There are three overlapping defences: duress of threats, consequences necessity.
There are three overlapping defences: duress of threats, circumstances & and
necessity.
According to the courts, the threat must be that of death or serious injury. If D is
threatenedto the courts, else threat must be that of it doesn‟t count unless there
According with anything the e.g. revealing sexuality, death. If D is threatened with
are threats ofe.g. revealing sexuality, it doesn‟t count.
anything else GBH or death as well.
In addition the threat must be to DD or someone that D feels responsible for. This
In addition the threat must be to or someone that D feels reasonably responsible
for. This the immediate family and spouse. However, it does it does not include the
includes includes the immediate family and spouse. However, not include the
stranger on the street, which seems out line with the approach ofof the Court to
stranger on the street, which seems in of line with the approach the Court to
murder and the „sanctity of human life‟ principle.
murder and the „sanctity of human life‟ principle.
Finally, in order to establish whether D was operating under duress, the Graham test
Finally, in order to establish whether D was operating under duress, the Graham
should be applied. This is subjective and objective and determines whether the threat
test should be applied. This is subjective and determines whether the threat really
really was real to D.
was real.
... is it right?

9. Graham Test
Was D compelled to act as he did If so, would a sober person of
because he reasonably believed
he had good cause to fear
and reasonable firmness, sharing the
characteristics of D have
serious injury or death as a responded in the same way.
result of what X says or does;
R v Martin (DP) 2000 What charactersitics?
Is a mental disorder relevant to
the first branch? R v Bowen
CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS NOT
ALLOWED ALLOWED.
Does the threat have to be real?
R v Cairns
What about self-induced characteristics
e.g. drug taking, alcohol etc.?
What about R v Hasan? Why do you think that the courts have
created these exceptions?
Are they in line with the law on loss of
control as a partial defence to murder? Why?
Why not?

10. What if you have the chance to tell
someone?
 General Rule:
R v Gill
What if the help doesn‟t
help?
R v Hudson v Taylor
... but guess which case has
something to say about this
all?
R v Hasan

11. How soon must it be carried out?
imminence or immediate
R v Abdul-Hussain confirmed in R v Safi
Imminent peril of death or serious
injury to those D is responsible for.
The peril must be operative on D‟s mind
at the point of committing the act, such
that it overbears their will. [this is
judged by the jury]
Not necessarily immediate execution.
...but “immediately or almost immediately” R v Hasan

12. Crime...what crime?
General Rule:
R v Cole
... But what about this?
D had been drinking in the pub, and his
friend Y offered to drive him home. D
fell asleep in the car, and woke up to
find that Y had vanished. He leaned over
and pulled the car over to the side of
the road, when he was arrested for
drink driving.

13. Applying the law so
far:
James is emailed by Louis, the
local thug, from his holiday in
Italy.
Louis tells James that he will kill
him when he gets back in a week,
if James doesn‟t rob the local post
office.
Has he got a defence?
On your whiteboard… decide and
be prepared to defend your
decision!

14. A specific problem:
Self Induced Duress
General rule: No defence, if you knew that you were likely to be subject to threats of violence.
Consort with those with a propensity
Member of a criminal gang for violence.
R v Heath
R v Sharp
R v Hasan
but R v Shepherd
R v Ali

15. Finally:
How well have you understood?
A
Consider whether the case of Hasan has changed the law on
duress of threats and why.
B Justify the decision not to afford those who kill a defence of duress
C Describe the approach of the courts to the problem of those who
‘consort with those with a propensity for violence’.
D Explain what is meant by the Graham test, and its purpose.
E Describe three of the limitations on the law of duress of threats

16. Starter:
Can you name the case?

17. Intro: Joseph, who is of a timid nature and low
intelligence, is told by Katya that she will beat
Create the Chain him up unless he obtains good by for her from a
shop using a stolen credit card. He does this and
obtains a DVD player for her.
Each pair or three will be given one Natasha‟s boyfriend, Ross, is a drug dealer. She
of these problems, and will apply also knows that he has convictions for violence.
the law to create the chain He threatens to beat her „senseless‟ unless she
agrees to take some drugs to one of his
Remember: „customers‟. She is caught by the police and
charged with possessing drugs with intent to
Start with the Graham test! supply.
Sanjeet‟s wife has tried to commit suicide
previously. She is very depressed because they
are heavily in debt. She tells Sanjeet that she
will throw herself under a train unless he can get
the money to pay off the debts. Sanjeet obtains
the money by robbing a local off-licence.
Tamara is due to give evidence against Alexia‟s
boyfriend who is facing trial for attempted
murder. A week before the trial is due to take
place. Alexia sends Tamara a text message saying
that Tamara will be killed if she gives evidence.
Tamara attends the court but lies in evidence
saying, untruthfully, that the man she saw was
much shorter than Alexia‟s boyfriend.

18. Duress of Circumstances
Thinking:
Why isn’t duress of threats
alone good enough?
R v Conway
R v Willer R v Martin (Colin)
D was charged with reckless driving. D&P
were in a narrow alleyway and were Is it just confined to driving offences?
surrounded by youths. To escape they
drove on the pavement slowly (at about
10MPH). As they were good citizens, they R v Pomell
went to the police station to report the
incident and guess what… they arrested
R v Saif;
and charged! R v Abdul Hussain
“[D was] wholly driven by force of
circumstances into doing what he did and Does the threat have to be real?
did not drive the car otherwise than under
that form of compulsion i.e. under duress”
Watkins LJ R v Cairns

19. Evaluate…
A-B C D-E
Look at both sides, and develop your Develop your point from a single Clearly explain your point, giving
point with a relevant case sentence, into an argument a reason.
Area Explanation Cases to
illustrate
Not available for
murder
No allowances for low
IQ
Police Protection
Self-induced
Duress of
Circumstances
„Person D feels
reasonably
responsible for‟
Imminence or
immediate?

20. Introduction
Should you have a defence in the following
situation?
You are climbing a mountain with two
friends. You are all tethered together.
Sophie, who is tethered below you, slips
and falls off the edge. You can’t see her and
have tried calling but can’t hear anything.
There is no way to pull her back up. Her
weight is pulling the other two of you
down, and pulling your fixtures out.
You decide to cut the rope, knowing that
she has a long way to fall and will probably
die.
Would your answer change if she replied?

21. Necessity:
An alternative approach?
“A choice between two evils”
Traditional approach… An alternative, medical, development…
Dudley & Stephens Re: F (Sterilisation)
“In many cases it will not only be
Necessity, if allowed would
lawful for doctors, on the ground
“be made the legal cloak for
of necessity to operate on or give
unbridled passion and
other medical treatment to adult
atrocious crime”
patients disabled from giving
consent, it will also be their
common duty to do so.”

22. Re: A
A civil case…with a criminal outcome?
Thinking…
What principle[s]
underlie the use of
necessity as a defence?
What offences is
necessity a defence to?
Is this binding
precedent on the Criminal
Courts? Why/why not?
Is the decision of the
Court of Appeal a general
one, applicable to all other
cases?

23. Starter:

24. Development of the law from there…
R v Shayler R v Quayle
Is necessity
actually a separate
defence?
R v Rodger
Can the threat
come from
within?

25. Criticism of the law on necessity…
The courts have consistently
referred to it alongside
duress of circumstances.
Complete the sentences to
show your understanding
of the topic.
The decisions in Quayle and Roger
Remember: seems to make it sound far too
similar to duress.
 Explain why
 Develop your argument
 Illustrate with a case Although the obiter of Re: A suggests it could be a
 Consider the defence to murder, the clear decision of Dudley &
alternative. Stephens seems to say otherwise.
It has the potential to be a much
wider defence than duress, as it is
Struggling? There are some much more of a subjective
approach.
points to help on the slide!

26. …and homework
Section C

27. Got it?
Can you complete the paragraph?

28. The whole topic...
Hidden in here are 24 cases covering general defences. Can
you find them and allocate it to one of the areas.
Duress & Necessity Intoxication
Insanity Automatism

29. Putting it all together...

30. Starter:
Which is the odd one out?
a) Howe
a) Quick a) Shepherd
b) Wilson
b) Hennessey b) Sharp
(Ashlea)
c) Bailey c) Howe
c) Gotts
a) Lipman a) Insanity a) Threats
b) Hardie b) Automatism b) Circumstances
c) Bailey c) Duress c) Necessity

31. ... And finally the third essay:
'The defence of duress is essential but, in its present form, unsatisfactory.'
Critically evaluate the accuracy of this statement. [OCR Section A, June 10]
... What areas of the law?
... What discussion points?
... Eight cases accurately cited?

32. How strong is your AO1?
Complete the sheet to show your understanding (you can use the plans and
responses to help!)

33. Self Assessment
Using your understanding of the criteria, highlight the boxes which you think accurately reflect
where your response sits:
Level AO1 AO2
5 Identification of all the areas of law raised High level of ability to develop arguments, and
by the question, citing at least 8 relevant identify all the important and relevant points of
cases accurately and clearly to support criticism, including reference to law reform, and
their argument.. reach a logical and well-informed conclusion.
4 Identification of most of the areas of law Analyses a range of issues central to the
raised by the question, citing at least 5 question, and shows some understanding of the
relevant cases accurately and clearly to reforms. Develops clear arguments and reach a
support their argument. sensible and informed conclusion.
3 Identification of some of the areas of law Analyses most of the obvious points of the
raised by the question, citing at least three question and beginning to develop these
relevant cases accurately and clearly to arguments to reach a conclusion.
support their argument.
2 Identification of some general areas of the Explains some of the more obvious points and
law raised by the question, citing at least or identifies the points of law in issue.
one relevant case , although it may be Arguments will be concise and limited, but may
described rather than cited lack focus or conclusion.
1 Identification of the basic concepts and Explains at least one of the simpler points
some accurate statements of facts, but central to the question. This approach may be
reference to cases may be confused or uncritical or unselective.
none existance.