Introduction
Duress of circumstances, a defense in criminal law, arises when an individual commits an offense to avoid a perceived imminent threat of death or serious injury. This defense, distinct from duress by threats, does not require a specific demand from another person. The basis of this defense lies in the principle that individuals should not be held criminally liable for actions taken under extraordinary pressure where their will is overborne by the threat of immediate harm. Establishing duress of circumstances requires specific criteria, including an objective assessment of the threat and the proportionality of the defendant's response. The courts have developed a two-stage test originating in R v Graham [1982] 1 All ER 801 and affirmed in R v Howe [1987] AC 417, which is essential for determining the validity of this defense.
The Two-Stage Test for Duress of Circumstances
The two-stage test from R v Graham provides a framework for evaluating duress of circumstances. First, the defendant must genuinely believe there is an imminent threat of death or serious injury. This is a subjective test examining the defendant's perception of the situation. Second, the defendant's response must be one that a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the defendant's characteristics, would have considered reasonable in the circumstances. This objective test introduces the concept of the reasonable person and allows the court to consider relevant characteristics of the defendant, such as age, sex, and physical condition.
Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652: Threat of Suicide as Duress
Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652, a significant case involving duress of circumstances, considered whether the threat of another person's suicide could constitute sufficient duress. The defendant drove whilst disqualified because his wife threatened to commit suicide if he did not drive their son to work. The court held that the threat of suicide could amount to a threat of death or serious injury, thereby satisfying the first limb of the Graham test. This established a precedent recognizing the potential severity of suicide threats within the context of duress of circumstances.
Applying the Objective Test in Martin
While the threat in Martin met the subjective test, the court also applied the objective limb. The question was whether a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the defendant's characteristics, would have driven whilst disqualified faced with the same threat. The court considered the immediacy and gravity of the perceived threat and determined that the defendant's actions were proportionate. This highlighted the importance of context and the specific circumstances in evaluating the reasonableness of the defendant's response.
Distinguishing Duress of Circumstances from Duress by Threats
Duress by threats involves a direct threat from another person compelling the defendant to commit a crime. In contrast, duress of circumstances stems from the surrounding circumstances, often a natural event or accident, creating a perceived threat of death or serious injury. R v Conway [1989] QB 290 provides a clear illustration of this distinction. The defendant, believing his passenger was being pursued by individuals who had previously shot at him, drove recklessly to escape. The threat was not a direct demand, but arose from the perceived danger of the situation. This demonstrates the core difference between the two forms of duress.
Limitations and Exclusions of Duress of Circumstances
Duress of circumstances, like other defenses, has limitations. The defense is unavailable for murder, attempted murder, and certain treason offenses, as affirmed in R v Howe. This restriction reflects the gravity of these offenses and the principle that even extreme circumstances do not justify taking another's life. Further, the threat must be immediate. A threat of future harm will not suffice. This ensures the defense applies only to situations where the defendant faced an immediate and unavoidable danger.
Conclusion
The defense of duress of circumstances, as established in R v Graham and applied in Martin, provides a critical legal framework for evaluating criminal liability in situations where individuals act under extreme pressure. The two-stage test provides a robust mechanism for assessing the validity of the defense, requiring both a subjective perception of imminent threat and an objective evaluation of the defendant's response. Martin specifically addressed the issue of suicide threats, clarifying that such threats can constitute duress. However, the limitations of the defense, particularly its exclusion in cases of murder and attempted murder, highlight the importance of balancing individual circumstances with the overall principles of criminal justice. The distinction between duress of circumstances and duress by threats further refines the application of these legal principles, ensuring clarity and consistency within the judicial system. The courts consistently apply the principles developed in Graham, Howe, Conway, and Martin to ensure a just and equitable approach to considering duress of circumstances.
