## Facts

- Two teenage witnesses, Linda Hudson and Elaine Taylor, gave police statements identifying Jimmy Wright as the assailant in a pub fight that resulted in a wounding.
- Before Wright’s trial, Hudson was threatened by a man known for violence that she would be “cut up” if she testified; Taylor was told she and Hudson would be “beaten up” if they gave evidence.
- At Wright’s trial, the threatening man appeared in the public gallery in view of the defendants.
- The defendants testified falsely that Wright was not the assailant; Wright was acquitted.
- Hudson and Taylor were later prosecuted for perjury; they admitted the testimony was false but claimed they acted under duress.
- The trial judge directed the jury that duress was unavailable because any danger was not “present and immediate” while the defendants testified in a courtroom, which the judge treated as a place of safety.
- The jury convicted both defendants (conditional discharges); they appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether duress requires a threat capable of being carried out immediately at the moment of the offense, or whether it is enough that the threat is operative and reasonably feared to be executed then or in the near future.
2. Whether the defendants’ failure to seek police or court protection automatically precludes reliance on duress.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the perjury convictions.
- The court held the trial judge misdirected the jury by applying an unduly strict “immediate danger” requirement and effectively withdrawing duress from the jury.
- The court held that the availability of protection was relevant to reasonableness, but did not bar duress as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Duress does not require that threatened harm be instantly enforceable at the precise time of the offense; it is sufficient that the threat remains operative and the defendant reasonably fears execution then or shortly thereafter.
- Whether a threat would overbear the will of a person of reasonable firmness, and whether it in fact overbore the defendant’s will, are ordinarily jury questions when supported by evidence.
- The existence of potential police or court protection is a factor in assessing the reasonableness of the defendant’s fear and response, but failure to seek protection does not automatically defeat duress.
- If there is evidence on which a reasonable jury could find duress, the judge must leave the defense to the jury under a correct legal direction.

## Conclusion

The convictions were quashed because duress may apply where prior threats remain operative and are reasonably feared to be carried out in the near future, even if the defendant is not in immediate physical danger at the moment of the offense, and because the reasonableness of not seeking protection is generally for the jury.


Regina v. Hudson & Taylor, [1971] 2 Q.B. 202 (Eng. C.A. 1971)