Introduction
The defense of duress in criminal law exonerates a defendant who commits an otherwise unlawful act because they were coerced into doing so by another person. R v Howe [1987] AC 417, a landmark House of Lords decision, significantly restricted the application of this defense. This case established the principle that duress is not available as a defense to a charge of murder, whether as a principal or as a secondary party. The judgment clarified the interaction between public policy considerations and the defense of duress, establishing a firm legal precedent that prioritizes the sanctity of human life. Key requirements for successfully pleading duress include an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm and a reasonable belief that the threat will be carried out. However, Howe definitively excludes this defense where the charge involves the intentional taking of another's life.
The Facts of R v Howe
Howe and Bannister were charged with two counts of murder and one of conspiracy to murder. They claimed they had acted under duress from Murray, a violent individual. The victims were subjected to torture and abuse before being killed. Howe and Bannister participated in the killings, alleging fear for their own lives if they disobeyed Murray.
The House of Lords' Decision
The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeals of both Howe and Bannister. The Law Lords held that the defense of duress could not be raised in cases of murder. Lord Hailsham LC, delivering the leading judgment, emphasized the absolute value placed on human life. He argued that allowing duress as a defense for murder would undermine the principle that all lives are equally valuable.
Public Policy and the Sanctity of Life
The decision in Howe rested heavily on public policy grounds. The court prioritized the protection of innocent life over the potential hardship faced by a defendant under duress. Lord Hailsham highlighted the potential for abuse if duress were permitted as a defense to murder. He reasoned that allowing such a defense could incentivize individuals to prioritize their own safety over the lives of others, potentially leading to tragic consequences.
Duress as a Defense to Other Crimes
While Howe established the unavailability of duress as a defense to murder, the judgment left open the question of its applicability to other serious offenses, such as attempted murder. This ambiguity was later resolved in R v Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412, where the House of Lords extended the principle established in Howe to attempted murder. The court held that the rationale for disallowing duress in murder cases – the overriding importance of protecting life – applied equally to attempts to take a life.
Comparison with the Defense of Necessity
The House of Lords distinguished between duress and necessity. Necessity, as a defense, arises where a defendant commits an offense to avoid a greater evil. While acknowledging that the distinction between duress and necessity can be complex, the court maintained that the two defenses operate on different principles. The court specifically noted that, unlike duress, necessity could potentially be a defense to murder in certain exceptional circumstances. This point was later considered in Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 147, where the Court of Appeal recognized the potential applicability of necessity in a medical context involving life-saving intervention.
Conclusion
R v Howe [1987] AC 417 stands as a significant legal precedent. The House of Lords judgment established the absolute prohibition of the duress defense in murder cases, affirming the overriding value of human life within the criminal justice system. The decision also clarified the relationship between duress and public policy considerations, demonstrating the court's willingness to restrict defenses where deemed necessary to protect fundamental societal values. The principles articulated in Howe, later reinforced and extended in Gotts, remain central to the understanding and application of the defense of duress in English criminal law. This case makes clear the legal principle that no threat, however grave, can justify the intentional taking of an innocent life. The distinctions drawn between duress and necessity in Howe also laid the groundwork for future judicial considerations of the necessity defense, especially in complex medical and ethical dilemmas such as those seen in Re A (Children). The case serves as an important reference point for legal scholars and practitioners dealing with the complex overlap of duress, necessity, and the sanctity of human life.
