## 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.
