R v Conway [1989] QB 290

Facts

  • The defendant, Conway, drove recklessly to escape two men whom he believed were about to attack his passenger.
  • The passenger had previously been shot at two weeks earlier, heightening the perceived threat.
  • Conway's actions were prompted by an immediate fear for safety, not by a direct verbal threat or demand from another individual.
  • The trial judge directed the jury on the elements necessary for the defense of duress of circumstances, and the Court of Appeal upheld this direction.

Issues

  1. Whether the defense of duress of circumstances applies when the threat arises from the situation itself rather than from explicit threats by another person.
  2. What standard should be used to assess the defendant's belief in the existence and imminence of the threat?
  3. Whether the defendant’s response to the perceived threat was reasonable and proportionate under the circumstances.
  4. How duress of circumstances is distinguished from the defense of necessity within criminal law.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal confirmed the existence of the defense of duress of circumstances in English law, building on earlier decisions.
  • The defense was held applicable where the defendant reasonably believed an imminent threat of death or serious injury existed, regardless of whether the source was a person or the circumstances.
  • The objective standard was affirmed: a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the defendant's characteristics, must have acted in the same way.
  • The response of the defendant must be reasonable and proportionate to the perceived threat.
  • The judgment differentiated duress of circumstances from necessity, emphasizing the immediacy and severity required for the former.
  • The trial judge’s direction to the jury was found to have correctly outlined these legal principles.

Legal Principles

  • Duress of circumstances operates where a defendant acts due to an immediate threat of death or serious injury, with no need for a specific demand from a coercer.
  • The threat must be objectively reasonable and imminent, judged by the reaction of a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing the defendant's characteristics.
  • The defendant's actions must be reasonable and proportionate to the perceived threat.
  • Duress of circumstances is distinct from necessity, the former focusing on immediate personal threats and the latter often involving broader policy considerations.
  • The defense is not available if the defendant’s perception of threat or their response is unreasonable or exaggerated.

Conclusion

R v Conway [1989] QB 290 established the structured application of duress of circumstances in English law, requiring an objectively reasonable and proportionate response to an imminent threat, while clarifying its distinction from the defenses of duress by threats and necessity.

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