R v Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652

Facts

  • Martin was charged with driving while unlicensed.
  • His defence was that he drove because his wife threatened to commit suicide if he did not take his stepson to work promptly, fearing the stepson would lose his job otherwise.
  • Martin believed his wife would act upon her threat.
  • The trial judge did not allow the jury to consider the defence of necessity.
  • On appeal, the High Court determined the jury should have been permitted to consider necessity as a defence.

Issues

  1. Whether duress of circumstances (necessity) could qualify as a defence under English criminal law.
  2. Whether the accused’s belief in the threat needed to be both genuine (subjective) and objectively reasonable.
  3. Whether the jury, rather than the judge, should decide if the defence of necessity applies based on the facts as asserted by the defendant.

Decision

  • The High Court allowed Martin’s appeal.
  • It held that necessity, including duress of circumstances, is recognised as a defence in cases of extreme danger.
  • The trial judge should have left the defence of necessity to the jury to consider.
  • The case clarified that if the defendant’s assertions could allow for the defence, the jury must assess both the genuineness of the belief in the threat and whether it was objectively reasonable.

Legal Principles

  • English law recognises a defence of necessity (duress of circumstances) where the accused acts reasonably and proportionately to avoid a threat of death or serious injury.
  • The defence requires a dual test: a genuinely held belief by the defendant in imminent danger (subjective element), and that a sober person of reasonable firmness would have acted similarly (objective element).
  • Juries, not judges, should determine whether necessity applies if the facts support its consideration.
  • The standards in necessity draw parallels to those in duress by threats, self-defence, and provocation, focusing consistently on both subjective belief and objective reasonableness.

Conclusion

R v Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652 confirmed the defence of necessity, specifically duress of circumstances, within English law, requiring both a genuine and objectively reasonable belief in a threat, and established that the jury must determine its applicability when the evidence permits.

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