Duress

The legal defence of duress

The concept of duress as a legal defence is based on the idea that a person should not be held criminally liable for an unlawful act if they were forced to carry it out against their will. In essence, this defence recognises that the accused may have lacked the necessary intent, or mens rea, to commit the crime due to coercion.

How to claim duress as a defence

When invoking the defence of duress, one must adhere to specific criteria and procedures. To successfully claim duress as a defence, the following elements need to be satisfied:

1. There must be a direct and immediate threat of harm to the defendant or a third party.
2. The threat should be of such a nature that a reasonable person with similar characteristics as the defendant would have acted in the same way.
3. The accused must have had no other alternative or opportunity to escape the threatened harm.
4. The defendant should not have voluntarily placed themselves in the situation where they knew or should have known that they could be subjected to duress.

Keep in mind that the burden of proof typically lies with the person claiming duress.

Limitations to defence of duress

It is crucial to understand that there are limitations to the defence of duress. For instance:

• Duress is not a defence to homicide or other crimes involving the use of deadly force.
• If the accused is responsible for placing themselves in a situation where they knew or should have known that they would be subjected to duress, this defence is not applicable.
• Duress is not considered a valid defence if the threat of harm was vague, remote, or not directly related to the offence.

In conclusion, understanding duress in criminal law is vital due to its potential use as a defence in certain cases. However, one must thoroughly comprehend the criteria, procedures, and limitations surrounding this unique and complex legal argument.

Duress and Contract Law

Duress in the context of contract law focuses on situations where an individual enters into a contract due to external pressure or threats, leading to a lack of genuine consent. The presence of duress can have profound implications on the validity of a contract and may lead to legal remedies, such as rescission of the contract.

Duress contract law: Principles and effects

When considering the role of duress in contract law, it is essential to first understand the underlying principles that govern this legal concept. At the heart of contract law is the requirement for parties to reach a mutual agreement voluntarily, based on their free will. Duress disrupts this essential element of consent and can impact the validity of a contract.

Vitiating factors in contracts

Duress is known as a vitiating factor in contracts. Vitiating factors are circumstances or elements that corrupt the basis of a contract, undermining its validity. Other vitiating factors within contract law include:

• Mistake
• Misrepresentation
• Undue influence
• Unconscionability

A contract affected by a vitiating factor, such as duress, is considered voidable, meaning it remains legally binding until one of the parties chooses to rescind or set it aside.

Rescission of contract under duress

If a party can successfully establish that they entered into a contract under duress, they may be entitled to the legal remedy of rescission. Rescission essentially renders the contract void, returning the parties to their pre-contractual positions and requiring that any benefits exchanged are returned. To claim rescission based on duress, the affected party must satisfy the following criteria:

1. A threat or pressure must be established – this could be physical, psychological, or economic in nature.
2. The pressure must be illegitimate or unlawful, such as an act of physical violence or coercion.
3. There must be a causal link between the duress and the party entering the contract, demonstrating that the duress influenced the party's decision to enter into the agreement.
4. The affected party must take steps to repudiate the contract and revoke their consent within a reasonable timeframe once the duress has ceased.

It is important to remember that the burden of proof lies with the party claiming duress.In conclusion, duress plays a crucial role in contract law as a vitiating factor impacting the validity and enforceability of agreements. Understanding the principles and effects of duress within this legal context can help identify when rescission of a contract may be the appropriate remedy for a party coerced into an agreement.

Analysing Duress of Circumstances

Duress of circumstances, also known as "necessity", is a distinct variant of duress in criminal law. Unlike traditional duress, which involves coercion or threats from another person, duress of circumstances arises when an individual commits an offence due to the presence of an imminent and overwhelming threat arising from the situation itself. In these cases, the individual perceives that there is no reasonable or lawful alternative available to avoid the harm or danger. To identify duress of circumstances, one should consider the following principles:

1. An external circumstance or situation has created an urgent and substantial threat or danger.
2. The accused must genuinely believe that committing the offence is the only way to avoid or minimize the harm or danger.
3. The accused must not have voluntarily placed themselves in a situation where they knew or should have known that duress of circumstances would arise.
4. The criminal act must be proportionate to the harm or danger being avoided.

Case studies and examples of Duress

Several legal cases provide insights into the application and evolution of the duress of circumstances defence:

1. R v. Willer (1986): This case introduced the concept of duress of circumstances in English law. The defendant, charged with reckless driving, claimed that he had driven dangerously to escape from a gang that threatened him. The court allowed the defence of duress of circumstances, recognising the defendant's perception of imminent harm.
2. R v. Pommell (1995): In this case, the defendant was charged with possessing an illegal firearm. He claimed that he took the gun from another person to prevent them from committing a crime and intended to surrender it to the police. The court accepted the defence of duress of circumstances, despite the absence of an immediate threat.
3. R v. Martin (2000): This case further clarified the distinction between duress and duress of circumstances. The appellant, a prison inmate, claimed that he escaped from prison to avoid an attack by other inmates. The court held that the defence of duress of circumstances did not apply, as there was no imminent and specific threat.

Distinction between duress of circumstances and other forms

It is crucial to understand the differences between duress of circumstances and other forms of duress or relevant defences in criminal law, including necessity and traditional duress. The following distinctions can be observed:

• Duress of circumstances vs. traditional duress: In traditional duress, the threat or coercion comes from another person. However, duress of circumstances involves a threat or danger arising from the situation itself.
• Duress of circumstances vs. necessity: Although duress of circumstances is sometimes referred to as "necessity", these defences are not identical. Necessity is a distinct defence, primarily based on the idea that an individual commits an offence to prevent a greater harm from occurring. Duress of circumstances, on the other hand, focuses on the presence of an external threat or danger which prompts the criminal act.
• Qualifications and limitations: It is pertinent to note that the specific qualifications and limitations applicable to traditional duress may differ from those applicable to duress of circumstances. For example, the defence of duress of circumstances may be allowed in specific cases where traditional duress is not permissible, such as prison escape cases.

In conclusion, it is essential to understand the unique aspects of duress of circumstances when examining its role in criminal law. This specific form of duress presents its own set of characteristics, qualifications, and limitations that differentiate it from traditional duress or necessity. Identifying these distinctions can provide a clearer understanding of how duress of circumstances serves as a defence in various legal situations.

Examining Types of Duress in Law

In legal contexts, duress can manifest in various forms and can be classified into three primary types: physical duress, economic duress, and psychological duress. Each type of duress has distinct characteristics, which influence the way it is treated in court decisions.

Impact of different duress scenarios on court decisions

To evaluate the impact of various duress scenarios on court decisions, it is essential to understand the specific attributes and considerations related to each type of duress. 1. Physical duress:Physical duress pertains to situations where the accused has been subjected to force, violence, or threats of physical harm. This may involve threats against the accused, their family members, or any other individual directly connected to them. Some key aspects of physical duress include:

• Immediacy of the threat: Courts generally require evidence that the threat of physical harm was imminent or directly impending at the time the unlawful act was committed.
• Severity of the threat: The level of violence or force threatened against the accused should be of such magnitude that a reasonable person with similar characteristics would find it impossible to resist.
• Personal vulnerability: Courts may take into account factors such as age, sex, physical condition, or any other relevant personal characteristic when determining the extent of physical duress.

2. Economic duress:

Economic duress refers to scenarios where an individual is coerced into committing a criminal act or entering a contract due to severe financial pressure or threats that directly impact their finances or livelihood. Some crucial factors in evaluating economic duress are:

• Illegitimate pressure: Economic duress must involve the use of intentionally harmful or exploitative tactics that exert unbearable economic pressure on the accused.
• Proportionality of pressure: The extent of financial harm or potential loss should significantly outweigh the consequences of committing the crime or entering into the contract under duress.
• Availability of alternatives: Courts may examine whether the accused had any other lawful options to mitigate the financial pressure, and why these options were not pursued.

3. Psychological duress: Psychological duress encompasses situations where a person is coerced into committing an illegal act or entering a contract due to psychological manipulation, deceit, or emotional pressure. Aspects of psychological duress that courts may consider include:

• Intentional manipulation: The psychological pressure must be deliberately applied by another person with the intention of inducing the accused to commit an unlawful act or enter into a contract against their will.
• Impact on reasonable person: The mental or emotional pressure should be of such intensity that it would have influenced a reasonable person in a similar position as the accused.
• Pre-existing vulnerability: Evidence of pre-existing psychological or emotional vulnerabilities in the accused may be taken into account when assessing the extent of psychological duress.

In conclusion, understanding the various types of duress, their specific characteristics, and their impact on court decisions is crucial for a comprehensive grasp of this legal concept. Physical duress, economic duress, and psychological duress each present unique challenges in evaluating the accused's culpability and the appropriate legal response. Courts will examine a range of factors, including the immediacy and severity of the threat, the accused's personal circumstances, and the availability of alternative actions before reaching a decision on the applicability of duress as a defence or a vitiating element in each case.

Duress Scenarios in Real-Life Cases

Duress scenarios often emerge in real-life cases, shedding light on the intricacies of the defence of duress and shaping how future situations are addressed in legal proceedings.

Notable examples of duress in legal proceedings

Several prominent cases have featured duress as a central element, providing insights into its application in various contexts and offering lessons for future legal situations:

1. R v. Bowen (1996): This case addressed the issue of personal characteristics and vulnerabilities of a defendant in the context of duress. In this case, the defendant claimed he was coerced into assisting a robbery due to threats of violence, the court held that only age and sex, but not low intelligence, should be considered as personal characteristics when determining whether a reasonable person would have acted in the same manner under the pressure of the threat.
2. R v. Hudson and Taylor (1971): In this case, the defendants were charged with perjury after giving false evidence in a trial. They claimed that they had been threatened by associates of the defendant from the initial trial, forcing them to lie under oath. The court decided that duress was applicable as a defence since the defendants reasonably believed in the immediacy of the threats and had no time to notify authorities before giving their false testimony.
3. Atlas Express Ltd v. Kafco (1989): A landmark case in economic duress, the defendants had entered a contract with the claimant, who later demanded more payment than initially agreed upon, under the threat of not delivering the goods. The court found that this constituted economic duress, rendering the contract voidable and allowing the defendants to rescind it due to the illegitimate pressure exerted by the claimant.
4. R v. Hasan (2005): This case highlighted the limitations of duress as the defendant claimed he had participated in a burglary under threat of violence from an associate. However, the court rejected his claim of duress, asserting that the defendant had voluntarily associated with criminals and should have anticipated the risk of being subjected to threats or pressure to commit an offence.

Lessons from past cases and their applicability to future situations

From these cases and others, valuable lessons can be derived to better understand the implications of duress in legal proceedings:

• Evaluation of personal characteristics: The courts will consider certain personal characteristics, like age and sex, when assessing whether a person would reasonably act under duress. However, courts may exclude other factors, such as intelligence, as highlighted in the R v. Bowen case.
• Immediacy of threat and available alternatives: Courts require evidence of an imminent threat for a successful duress defence, as demonstrated in R v. Hudson and Taylor. Furthermore, the accused must have exhausted or had no reasonable alternatives before succumbing to the pressure.
• Illegitimate pressure in economic duress: The Atlas Express Ltd v. Kafco case demonstrates that economic duress demands a clear and illegitimate pressure exerted on one party by another, leading to a significant inequality of bargaining power.
• Voluntary association and its impact on duress: If a defendant knowingly associates with criminals or willingly places themselves in a dangerous environment, courts may reject their claim of duress defence, as illustrated in R v. Hasan.

In summary, these key takeaway points from past cases can serve as guides for understanding the complexity and intricacies of duress defences in real-life legal scenarios. By examining the factors considered by courts and analysing the balance between duress claims and the accused's contribution or actions in situations leading to the offence, a more profound comprehension of how duress functions within the legal field can be achieved.