The defendant claimed duress saying that he had become indebted to his drugs supplier and had been forced to commit the crimes. He said he did not foresee that he might be required to commit crimes for the supplier.
Held: The court did not accept this argument: ‘We cannot accept that where a man voluntarily exposes himself to unlawful violence, duress may run if he does not foresee that under the threat of such violence he may be required to commit crimes. There is no reason in principle why that should be so.’
Judges:
May LJ, Goldring and Gross JJ
Citations:
[2002] Crim LR 401
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Followed – Regina v Heath CACD 7-Oct-1999
The appellant claimed that he had become indebted to a drug supplier, and that he had been compelled by threats of physical violence to collect the consignment of drugs which gave rise to his conviction. His defence of duress failed at trial.
Cited by:
Cited – Hasan, Regina v HL 17-Mar-2005
The House was asked two questions: the meaning of ‘confession’ for the purposes of section 76(1) of the 1984 Act, and as to the defence of duress. The defendant had been involved in burglary, being told his family would be harmed if he refused. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.223673