Facts
- Ian Gotts, aged seventeen, was indicted for the attempted murder of his mother following a serious assault that left her with substantial injuries from which she ultimately recovered.
- The defendant’s explanation was that his father, reputed for recurrent violence within the family, ordered him to kill his mother and threatened to kill him if he failed to comply.
- Acting under this threat, Gotts attacked his mother but, either through hesitation or ineffective execution, did not cause her death.
- When the matter came before the Crown Court, the trial judge refused to leave the defence of duress to the jury, ruling that, in line with the House of Lords decision in R v Howe [1987] AC 417, duress is legally unavailable in cases of murder.
- Gotts was convicted, and his appeal reached the House of Lords to determine whether the exclusion in Howe should also govern attempted murder.
Issues
- Whether duress can ever be relied upon as a defence to a charge of attempted murder.
- Whether the policy grounds that bar duress in murder—principally the sanctity of human life—logically apply to attempted murder, an inchoate offence in which the victim survives.
Decision
- By a majority, the House of Lords held that duress is not a defence to attempted murder.
- Their Lordships reasoned that the rationale in R v Howe, which precludes duress for murder, must apply with equal force to an attempt to kill. The moral quality of the defendant’s conduct—deliberately seeking to take life—is the same irrespective of whether death results.
- Extending duress to attempted murder while excluding it from murder would create an illogical and undesirable divergence in the law: the more successful killer would have no defence, whereas the unsuccessful one would.
- The court further emphasised that a rule allowing threats to negate liability for deliberate life-threatening conduct would place innocent victims at a heightened risk, conflicting with the criminal law’s protective purpose.
- Accordingly, the conviction was upheld.
Legal Principles
- Duress functions as a general exculpatory defence in English criminal law, but it is subject to categorical limits. Prior authority establishes two absolute exclusions: murder (Howe) and, after Gotts, attempted murder.
- The guiding policy is the preservation of human life. The law expects individuals, even when threatened with death, to refrain from intentionally killing or attempting to kill another.
- Criminal attempts are judged by the defendant’s intent and the steps taken toward the prohibited result. Since the intent in attempted murder is identical to that in murder—an intent to kill—the same prohibition on duress logically follows.
- Consistency and clarity in criminal doctrine are valued. Recognising duress for attempted murder would erode that coherence, producing an anomalous situation where liability hinges on the happenstance of whether medical intervention prevented death.
- The decision also reinforces that partial or lesser defences (e.g., provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter) have no parallel in attempts; the law either excuses the attempt entirely or not at all.
Conclusion
R v Gotts decisively extends the Howe principle, confirming that duress is excluded not only from murder but also from attempted murder. The ruling secures doctrinal consistency, affirms the supreme importance of human life, and signals that threats—even threats of lethal violence—cannot justify an intentional attempt to take life.
