CRIMINAL LAW II

[Virtual Presenter] Welcome, everyone. Today, we will be discussing the defense of duress, and the legal implications of threats in criminal cases. We will be exploring whether defense of duress is available to all crimes, the exceptions, what constitutes a threat, and other legal issues related to duress. I am excited to facilitate this discussion and look forward to your input. Let's get started!.

[Virtual Presenter] Duress is a type of defense raised in criminal cases by which a defendant claims to have been forced to commit a crime. This presentation will explore the element of duress, looking at its definition, the two-part test used to establish it, its need for immediacy, and its availability for various offenses. Duress occurs when a person is coerced or threatened into doing something against their will or better judgment due to substantial external pressure. The two-part test used to determine duress is an objective test which focuses on the severity of the threat or pressure and a subjective test which focuses on the defendant's mental state. It is also important to note that immediacy is needed to prove the defense of duress and that it is not available for all crimes, with certain exceptions..

[Audio] Duress, or the defense of Duress, may be available as a defense for someone charged with a criminal offense if they only acted due to being threatened with death or serious physical harm. This defense is a common law defense, meaning the jury must decide if the threat was serious enough to warrant the defense of duress. The person who makes the threat is referred to as the 'duressor', while the person receiving the threat is the 'duresee'. Additionally, there are two types of duress - duress by threat and duress by circumstance. Duress by threat is when someone's actions are caused by somebody else making an explicit threat. Duress by circumstance is when somebody's actions are caused by a difficult or dangerous situation..

[Audio] In R v Hasan (2005), the accused pleaded duress as a defence for committing the crime of aggravated burglary. He claimed that he was blackmailed into doing it in order to protect his family from harm. However, Lord Bingham ruled that this defense was not available as Hasan had voluntarily associated himself with a gang and should have anticipated the chance of being compelled to carry out burglary due to his relationship with the criminal community..

[Audio] Considering the defense of duress, which involves the threat of serious injury or death either to the defendant themselves or a third party, the courts have expressed concern about defendants possibly fabricating such threats in order to avoid criminal liability, which is why this defense is referred to as high burden. This means that defendants should not use the defense of duress unless they are able to prove it. Furthermore, if the defense cannot be proven, then the facts may be used to mitigate any sentencing. According to Lord Bingham in Hasan, a plea of duress of threat must involve the threat of death or serious injury, and be a reasonably apprehended threat..

[Audio] R v Valderamma-Vega case implies that the threats of grave personal violence against the accused, along with the possibility of revealing his homosexuality to his wife, counted as duress and should have been demonstrated to the jury. This means that the accused was essentially constrained into carrying out the offense, instead of doing so out of his own choice. The Court of Appeal accepted that financial coercion or blackmail by itself does not have enough supporting evidence, meaning that physical coercion is an integral part of the defense..

[Audio] When considering duress in criminal law, it is essential to recognize that threats can target someone besides the accused. The courts have taken a stringent stance on these threatening conditions, as illustrated by the Hurley v Murray and Hasan cases. Nevertheless, cases such as R v Shayler demonstrate that even if one cannot identify who is in danger, the threat can still be applicable..

[Audio] The landmark case of Lynch v DPP for Northern Ireland established that when applying the defense of duress, the gravity of the offense must be taken into consideration. The more serious the offense, the more serious and irresistible the threat must be. In the case of Dao, the court ruled that being locked inside with no escape and a credible threat of death or serious injury to be sufficient for duress to be accepted as a defense. 2012 saw an additional ruling whereby a credible threat of rape was also deemed adequate. In short, it is the gravity of the offense that is paramount in determining whether the defense of duress is successful..

[Audio] We will be discussing the UK criminal law concept of duress today, specifically looking at the 1982 case of Graham. The appellant – Graham – was living with his wife and his homosexual lover Mr. King. Taking medication and Valium, King strangled Mrs. Graham while the appellant assisted by holding onto the flex. Graham argued that he had been under duress, with medical evidence to support the case, meaning duress was tested both objectively and subjectively. We will consider how this concept would appear in modern criminal law..

[Audio] A defense of duress may be applicable when a criminal act is done due to a threat of immediate danger. It is significant, and an example of this is when the threat of death or grave injury is reasonable and unlikely to be put into action. Even if the threat meets the objective man criteria, the defense may not be usable if the defendant could have sought police protection, or if the intent of the threat is not known..

[Audio] It is important to take into account the context of a situation when assessing the defense of duress in a criminal court. The jury must consider whether a person of reasonable fortitude and similar characteristics to the defendant would have responded similarly to the same threats. In R v Hergarty, the court of appeal disregarded evidence of the defendant's propensity for coercion, however, in the Emery case, an appeal was allowed since the defendant had undergone prolonged physical abuse. This demonstrates that the evaluation of duress should be tailored to the particular circumstances and not enforced uniformly..

[Audio] Duress is an important concept in criminal law, and we must consider its implications when deciding guilt or innocence. I will present three cases to illustrate this. In Bowen (1996), it was determined that an individual's low IQ did not affect their capacity to endure threats. Regina v A (2012) showed that although the person in question's fear was valid, it was not based on reasonable grounds, as no violent threats were made. Finally, R v Shayler (2001) established that the belief of threats was not based on reasonable grounds. Through examining these cases, a clearer understanding of duress in criminal law can be gained..

[Audio] In the 1963 case of Gill, the defense of duress was not applicable as the threat of harm was not immediate, as the accused was left alone outside his employer's yard and had the possibility to raise the alarm and escape the threat. On the other hand, the 1971 case of R v Hudson and Taylor saw duress being used as a defense successfully, resulting in the overturning of their convictions. This was because it was deemed unreasonable to expect a group of young girls to seek police protection, as the threat could hardly have been carried out immediately in open court..

[Audio] Duress is a legal defence which can be used when a defendant has been blackmailed into committing a crime due to an immediate threat of harm against themselves or someone else. The defendant must have had no time to consider other options and acted instantly - immediacy being a key factor in deciding if this defence is applicable..

[Audio] In a charge of duress by threat, the accused must demonstrate that there were no other options and that the risk of harm was imminent. The prosecution can attempt to demonstrate that the accused failed to take advantage of a viable opportunity like raising an alert or consulting with the police. Additionally, if there is a chance to flee or get in touch with the authorities, the accused must take it, which makes up an essential part of the defense of duress by threat..

Self Induced Threats and Voluntary Exposure. What is voluntary exposure? A purposeful exposure to unneeded danger. (voluntarily place themselves at risk of coercion) The risk has been recognized consciously. A reasonable person would view voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger as increasing the likelihood of injury. Intoxication? Defense is unavailable for both voluntary and involuntary intoxication. However if the involuntary intoxication , produces a mistaken belief that one is being threatened, defendant would be availed even if it is unreasonable, as long as the belief if true, would make a reasonable man do as the accused did . R v Flatt (1996) He appealed contending that in assessing whether a person of reasonable firmness would have acted as he did, his characteristic of being a drug addict should have been taken into account . His appeal was dismissed and conviction was upheld..

[Audio] In the two cases of R v Sharp and R v Shepherd, the defence of duress was discussed. R v Sharp had the court reject the defence as the defendant had willingly joined the gang aware that it could eventually lead to crime. On the other hand, R v Shepherd saw the court accept the defence as the appellant was threatened with violence against themselves and family if he did not continue to commit burglaries, and it was not necessary for the appellant to know the type of crime they were to be forced to commit..

[Audio] The defense of duress refers to when a person is threatened with dire consequences if they do not commit a criminal act. In R v Cole (1994), the defendant had been threatened by a loan shark and thus, robbed several building societies to repay the money. However, the court found that the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove the threat and the defense was dismissed. This serves to demonstrate the necessity of providing appropriate evidence in order to be successful in a defense of duress..

[Audio] In R v Heath from 2000, a drug user was denied the defense of duress when supplying a class B drug after having failed to pay his owner supplier. The justification was that the user had been aware of the potential risks of engaging with drug dealers, and that he had the option of turning to the police or seeking refuge with relatives in Scotland. This case serves as a significant demonstration of how duress can be beyond the scope of criminal organizations..

[Audio] Under the principle of duress, a person is not held culpable for engaging in criminal action, provided that the act was the result of an immediate threat with no reasonable alternative. This defense, however, does not apply to all criminal offenses; for instance, the notable exception of treason is seen in the case of R v Steane. Here, the defendant, a British citizen residing in Germany during World War II, was compelled to produce films for the Nazis or his wife and children would be sent to a concentration camp. Despite the immense pressure, he was charged with an act likely aiding the enemy, and had no recourse to duress as a defense. Though treason charges are now rare, this example shows the limits of the duress defense..

[Audio] Duress is a legal defense which claims a person was forced to commit a criminal act through the use of threat or coercion. However, in the 1977 case of Abbott versus the Queen, it was highlighted that duress is not available as a defense in the instance of murder, attempted murder or being an accessory to murder. Abbott had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death after he was involved in a brutal killing that had been preceded by death threats to himself and his mother. Abbott argued that the defense of duress should have been available in his case, but his appeal was denied and his conviction was upheld. It is still the law today that duress cannot be used as a defense for murder, attempted murder or being an accessory to murder..

[Audio] Duress is usually considered a valid defense when facing criminal liability, as exemplified by the 1981 case of R v Howe and Bannister. In this case, a group of men had committed two violent murders, and the defendant, who was a secondary party, argued that he only took part because he was afraid of the duressor. The House of Lords, however, concluded that in cases where it could potentially lead to the murder of an innocent third-party, a defendant should rather be willing to die than commit such an offence, leading to the removal of this defense for those classified as accessories to murder. This was on the grounds that there was no sure and fair way to differentiate principals and accessories in any significant way regarding culpability..

[Audio] R v Gotts, a 1992 case involving a sixteen-year-old boy facing a charge of attempted murder, saw a similar ruling to the 1987 case of R v Howe & Bannister in that the defense of duress was not applicable. Gotts had argued that his father had threatened to shoot him unless he killed his mother, however, regardless of the circumstances, the court maintained that the defense of duress was not available..

[Audio] Duress is generally acknowledged as a legitimate defense in criminal law, yet there are a few exceptions. In regards to murder and any related crimes, such as attempted murder or assistance in murder, Duress is not a permissible defense. This was seen in R v Steane, a case that involved treason. Furthermore, when a defendant willingly aligns themselves with a violent criminal group, they are barred from utilizing the Duress defense as seen in R v Sharp. However, there are certain scenarios in which the defense may be applicable, as was established in R v Shepherd..

[Audio] It is important to consider whether a defendant was acting voluntarily or under duress when determining criminal liability. The 1977 ruling of R v Fitz Patrick saw the appellant not allowed to use duress as a defense, as they had voluntarily joined the IRA and wanted to leave. Similarly, R v Ali from 1995 saw the defendant threatened with death if they did not commit a robbery, but they were unable to use the defense due to their ability to take evasive action. Similarly, both R v Hudson and Taylor in 1971, and R v Hasan in 2005, saw defendants not allowed to rely on the defense due to this opportunity to take evasive action..

[Audio] Are there any questions concerning duress (threats)? I have explained that, in criminal law, duress (threats) can be used as a defense against criminal liability in certain cases. To use this defense, the accused must demonstrate that they were facing the imminent risk of death or serious injury and that they had no reasonable way out before committing the offense. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask..

[Audio] Duress is a defense to criminal activity initiated by an offender which is caused by an imminent threat of harm. Psychological duress has been accepted in cases of threats to the accused or their close family members, while physical duress is typically accepted if the accused was physically threatened or in danger and had only the criminal act as a means of escape. Both the elements of threat and the reasonability of the accused’s conduct must be proven in such cases. The different elements that need to be taken into consideration include the accused’s state of mind, the nature of the threat, the accused’s ability to resist, and any actions taken to resist. This presentation discussed Criminal Law II, Group 4: Duress (Threats) and was presented by students Bensi, Belinay, Abigail, and Mayimuna. Thank you for your attention and good luck in your future endeavors..