## Facts

- Two teenage girls, Hudson and Taylor, served as prosecution witnesses in a trial and were threatened by a gang.
- Gang members warned them not to give evidence, with at least one gang member present in the court’s public gallery during their testimony.
- In fear of these threats, the girls committed perjury by giving false testimony.
- The case addressed whether the threat was sufficiently immediate to constitute duress since it was possible police protection could have been sought, and the threat could be carried out later that day.

## Issues

1. Whether a defence of duress is available where threats are not immediately executable at the scene but could plausibly be carried out soon after.
2. What degree of immediacy is required for duress, and whether seeking police protection eliminates the defence.
3. How the age and circumstances of the accused affect the assessment of duress.

## Decision

- The Court found that the defence of duress could be available even when threats are not instantly executable at the precise time and place of the offence, provided the threat remains real and imminent.
- It was held that the presence of a gang member in the courtroom and the ongoing threat justified the girls' belief that the threat would be carried out soon after, fulfilling the requirement of immediacy.
- The jury must consider the circumstances and characteristics of the defendants, such as their age, when assessing whether failing to seek police protection negates the defence of duress.
- The decision clarified that threats capable of being executed in the near future, not just immediately, can satisfy the requirements for duress if they operate on the accused at the relevant moment.

## Legal Principles

- Duress requires threats of death or serious bodily harm directed toward compelling a specific offence.
- The immediacy of the threat is a key element; threats must operate on the defendant at the time of the offence and be of a realistic and continuing nature.
- Defendants must seek police protection where reasonably possible; however, juries must consider the reasonableness in light of the defendant’s age and situation.
- The two-stage test for duress involves a subjective belief in immediate danger and an objective standard of resistance for a reasonable person with relevant characteristics.
- Voluntary association with violent criminals may preclude the defence of duress.
- Duress is not available as a defence to murder or attempted murder.

## Conclusion

R v Hudson and Taylor clarified the immediacy requirement for duress, holding that threats may support the defence if realistically imminent, and established that factors such as age and circumstances are relevant in assessing whether an accused should have sought police protection. The case contributed to the definition and limits of duress as a criminal defence.

R v Hudson and Taylor [1971] 2 QB 202