1. Duress of circumstances
Defences
Duress of circumstances

2. Lesson Objectives
I will be able to state the definition of the defence of duress of circumstances
I will be able to explain how the law balances the seriousness of the harm threatened and the offence committed
I will be able to explain how the law deals with the issues of immediacy and means of escape

3. Introduction
Duress of circumstances differs from duress by threats in that in duress by threats the defendant claims he is forced to commit an offence, whereas in duress of circumstances the defendant believes he, or those with him would suffer death or serious injury if he did not escape by doing what he did
It is a little like self-defence
Martin (1989) – this case set out the principles behind duress of circumstances

4. Elements to consider The objective nature of the threat
Reasonable and proportionate action
The nature of the test
Limits to the defence

5. Objective nature of the threat
The fact that the threat must be seen objectively means that this is the view that a reasonable man – in other words the jury – would take
This is the same as duress by threats and therefore requires consideration of the same characteristics of the defendant as seen in Bowen (1996)

6. Reasonable and proportionate action
This acts to limit the circumstances in which the defence may be pleaded – this is not just proportionate action, but action that would only be taken given the very serious nature of the threats made
Conway (1989) – the defendant, fearing a repeat attack, drove off recklessly; the court could consider whether this was a proportionate and reasonable behaviour so as to amount to the defence of duress of circumstances

7. The nature of the test
The test is exactly the same as the test for duress by threats, with the obvious changes:
1. was the accused, or may he have been impelled to act as he did because as a result of what he reasonably believed to be the situation he had good cause to fear that otherwise death or serious physical injury would result?
2. if so, may a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the accused, have responded to that situation by acting as the accused acted?
An application of the test can be seen in Rodger and Rose (1997) – the defence is not available where the circumstances are internal to the defendant; to do so would be a license for anyone to commit a crime based on some evidence of ‘suicidal thoughts’

8. Limits to the defence
The defence has the same limitations on it as duress by threats – this was specifically stated in the case of Pommell (1995) – the Court of Appeal specifically extended the defence of duress of circumstances to all crimes as in duress by threats

9. Exam Q