Regina v Safi (Ali Ahmed); Regina v Ghayur; Regina v Shah; Regina v Showaib; Regina v Mohammidy; Regina v Shohab; Regina v Ahmadi; Regina v Safi (Mahammad Nasir); Regina v Kazin: CACD 6 Jun 2003

The defendants appealed convictions after rejection of their defence of duress. They had hijacked an aeroplane in Afghanistan, and surrendered eventually at Stansted. They said they were acting under duress, believing they had no other way of escaping death or serious injury at the hands of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Held: There had been a mis-direction of the jury. The judge asked the jury to ask whether there had been an immediate threat of violence from which the defendants sought to escape. The test was what they reasonably believed to be a threat. There remained a need for parliament to set clear guidelines for the defence of duress. It was not open to the court to make a law that the offence of hijacking should be treated differently to other crimes.


Longmore, Cooper, LJJ, Cox J


Times 10-Jun-2003, Gazette 14-Aug-2003, [2003] Crim LR 721, [2004] 1 Cr App Rep 12


England and Wales


ApprovedRegina v Graham CACD 1982
The court gave standard directions for the jury in a case where the defendant pleaded duress. . .
CitedRegina v Abdul-Hussain; Regina v Aboud; Regina v Hasan CACD 17-Dec-1998
The law of the defence of duress arising out of threat or circumstances is in need of urgent parliamentary clarification. Appeals were allowed where the defendants hijacked an airplane in order to escape deportation to a hostile country. ‘The . .
CitedRegina v Howe etc HL 19-Feb-1986
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder, saying that their defences of duress had been wrongly disallowed.
Held: Duress is not a defence available on a charge of murder. When a defence of duress is raised, the test is . .
CitedSubramaniam v Director of Public Prosecutions PC 1956
(Malaysia) The defendant sought to advance a defence of duress under a section of the Penal Code of the Federated Malay States which provided that, with certain exceptions, ‘nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it . .

Cited by:

CitedHasan, 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 . .
CitedQuayle and others v Regina, Attorney General’s Reference (No. 2 of 2004) CACD 27-May-2005
Each defendant appealed against convictions associated variously with the cultivation or possession of cannabis resin. They sought to plead medical necessity. There had been medical recommendations to move cannabis to the list of drugs which might . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.183351