## Facts

- The case concerned the scope and application of the defense of duress in English criminal law.
- Hasan was involved in a criminal enterprise and claimed to have acted under duress due to threats of death or serious injury.
- The House of Lords reviewed the necessary conditions for a successful duress defense, including the immediacy and specificity of threats, reasonable belief in their execution, and the significance of prior association with criminals.

## Issues

1. Whether the defense of duress is available where the defendant voluntarily associates with known criminals and could foresee coercion.
2. Whether the test for duress is to be assessed objectively, focusing on what a reasonable person of the defendant’s characteristics would have done.
3. Whether the threat relied on must be immediate, specific, and directly linked to the crime committed.
4. Whether the defense is precluded if the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to escape the threat.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that duress is not available where the defendant foresaw, or should have foreseen, the risk of being compelled to commit a crime due to voluntary association with criminals.
- The objective test of reasonableness applies: a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing certain relevant characteristics (like age or serious disability), must be considered—not traits like timidity.
- The threat relied upon must be imminent and directly related to the specific offence committed; broad or distant threats are insufficient.
- The defense cannot apply where the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to evade or escape the threat.

## Legal Principles

- The defense of duress requires an immediate and specific threat of serious harm directly compelling the offence.
- Only relevant personal characteristics affecting resistance to threats may be considered in the objective test.
- Voluntary association with criminals, where coercion is or should be foreseeable, excludes reliance on duress.
- If a defendant could reasonably escape the coercion, the defense is not available.

## Conclusion

R v Hasan significantly restricts the defense of duress, mandating an objective standard, strict immediacy and specificity of threats, and denying the defense to those who voluntarily involve themselves with criminals and foresee coercion. The case remains central to the modern application of the duress doctrine in English criminal law.


R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22