R v Howe [1987] AC 417 (HL)

Facts

  • Howe and Bannister were charged with two counts of murder and one count of conspiracy to murder.
  • The defendants claimed that they acted under duress from Murray, a violent individual who threatened them.
  • The victims suffered torture and abuse before being killed.
  • Howe and Bannister participated in the killings, asserting they feared for their own lives if they did not comply with Murray’s demands.

Issues

  1. Whether duress may be relied upon as a defence to a charge of murder, either as a principal or as a secondary party.
  2. Whether the public policy considerations regarding the sanctity of life override the individual hardship of defendants acting under threat.
  3. How, if at all, the defence of duress is distinguished from the defence of necessity in cases of serious crimes.

Decision

  • The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeals of Howe and Bannister.
  • It was held that duress is not available as a defence to murder, whether the accused is a principal or secondary party.
  • The leading judgment, delivered by Lord Hailsham LC, emphasized that allowing duress as a defence would undermine the absolute value placed on human life.
  • The court ruled public policy requires the protection of innocent life over allowing duress as a defence to murder.
  • The issue of duress as a defence to attempted murder was left open in Howe, but the principle was later extended to attempted murder in R v Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412.

Legal Principles

  • The defence of duress requires an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm, and a reasonable belief that the threat would be carried out.
  • Duress cannot be relied upon as a defence to murder, regardless of the role played by the accused.
  • Public policy and the sanctity of life justify the absolute prohibition of duress as a defence to intentional killing.
  • The House of Lords distinguished duress from necessity, acknowledging the potential applicability of necessity as a defence to murder only in exceptional cases.
  • The case clarified the importance of protecting fundamental societal values over individual hardship in criminal law.

Conclusion

R v Howe [1987] AC 417 (HL) established the definitive rule that duress is not a defence to murder, reinforcing the sanctity of human life and setting an enduring precedent in English criminal law. The judgment sharpened the distinction between duress and necessity and underscored the primacy of public policy in restricting legal defences to homicide.

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