Hudson v Taylor [1971] 2 QB 202

Facts

  • Carol Hudson and Joyce Taylor, two teenagers, were charged with perjury after providing false testimony in court.
  • Both claimed they had been threatened by a violent individual associated with the actual offenders, and feared for their safety if they spoke the truth.
  • The individual responsible for the threats was known to be violent, leading the girls to believe that the danger to them was real and ongoing.
  • At trial, the judge directed the jury that the defence of duress was not available because the threatener was not physically present in court and could not act on the threat immediately.

Issues

  1. Whether duress requires the threatener to be physically present and capable of carrying out the threat at the time of the offence.
  2. Whether fear of future harm, as opposed to immediate harm, can constitute sufficient grounds for a duress defence.
  3. Whether the objective test for duress should include factors such as age and personal characteristics.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s finding, holding that it is not necessary for the person making the threat to be present at the offence for duress to be available as a defence.
  • The court found that the continued fear stemming from prior threats was sufficient to influence the defendants’ actions at the time the offence was committed.
  • It was held that lasting fear of future harm could amount to duress if it genuinely affected the defendants’ conduct.
  • The judgment emphasized that insisting on the threatener’s physical presence or ability to carry out the threat instantly was unrealistic, especially in cases of persistent threats or group violence.
  • The court affirmed that age and gender are relevant in applying the objective test for duress.

Legal Principles

  • Duress by threat may be applied where the threat induces a genuine and reasonable fear of imminent, though not necessarily immediate, harm.
  • The requirement for imminence is satisfied if the threat exerts a direct influence on the defendant’s conduct at the time of the offence.
  • The objective test for duress considers whether a person of ordinary courage, sharing the defendant’s characteristics, would have acted in the same way.
  • The assessment of the defence may incorporate relevant factors such as the defendant’s age and gender.

Conclusion

Hudson v Taylor [1971] 2 QB 202 established that the defence of duress in criminal law does not require threats to be immediately executable, provided a genuine and reasonable fear of future harm influenced the defendant's actions, and affirmed the importance of considering personal characteristics in the objective test for duress.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal