## Facts

- The case concerned the defense of duress in criminal law, specifically when an individual commits an unlawful act under threat of death or serious injury.
- Evidence showed that the defendant, Graham, suffered from alcoholism and was dependent on his co-defendant, influencing his response to the threat.
- The case was decided by the Court of Appeal, which clarified the requirements for a successful duress defense.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendant genuinely believed in the immediacy and seriousness of the threat (subjective component).
2. Whether a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the defendant’s characteristics, would have acted as the defendant did (objective component).
3. Whether the threat faced by the defendant was immediate and unavoidable, justifying the use of duress as a defense.
4. Whether there are exclusions to the defense of duress, including in cases of murder or voluntary association with criminal activities.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal established a two-stage test for duress: a subjective test focusing on the defendant’s honest belief in the threat, and an objective test considering the response of a reasonable person in similar circumstances.
- The defense of duress is only available when the threat is immediate and leaves no reasonable opportunity to avoid the crime or seek protection.
- The Court recognized that duress is not a defense to murder or attempted murder.
- The defense is denied if the defendant voluntarily joined criminal groups known to exert coercive pressure.

## Legal Principles

- The two-stage test for duress includes: (1) the defendant’s genuine, honest belief in the immediacy and gravity of the threat; and (2) whether a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing relevant characteristics, would have responded similarly.
- The subjective element considers the defendant’s personal circumstances, such as age, sex, or mental health.
- The objective element acts as a safeguard against abuse of the defense for minor threats or where alternatives to the offense were available.
- The threat must be immediate and unavoidable to qualify for the defense.
- Duress is unavailable for murder, attempted murder, or where the defendant voluntarily associated with criminals expected to apply coercion.

## Conclusion

Graham v R established the two-stage (subjective and objective) test for duress in English law, clarifying the requirements for its application and setting important limits on the defense, particularly in cases of murder and voluntary association with criminal actors.


Graham v R [1982] 1 WLR 294