## 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.
