## 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.
