Duress of Circumstances: Definition, Tests, Limits and Cases

Introduction

Duress of circumstances is a defence in English criminal law used where a person breaks the law because they reasonably fear death or serious injury and have no safe choice but to act. Unlike duress by threats, which involves pressure from a person, duress of circumstances arises from the situation itself (for example, an emergency on the road or a fear of immediate violence).

Courts recognise that when faced with a real and pressing danger, people may act unlawfully to avoid greater harm. That said, the defence is tightly controlled. It is not available for murder or attempted murder and will fail if there was a safe and reasonable alternative. The focus is both on what the defendant believed at the time and whether their response was reasonable.

This guide sets out the legal test, explains the limits, shows how the courts apply the defence, and gives practical steps for exams and practice.

What You'll Learn

• A plain-English definition of duress of circumstances and when it applies
• The two-stage test from R v Martin and how juries are directed
• How “imminence” and causation work (including R v Abdul-Hussain)
• Differences between duress of circumstances and duress by threats
• Key limits: excluded offences, self-induced risk, and threats to property
• Leading cases: Willer, Conway, Martin, Abdul-Hussain, Cairns, Pommell
• Practical steps to assess, evidence, and present the defence

Core Concepts

What counts as duress of circumstances?

• The pressure comes from the situation, not a person’s demand.
• The feared harm must be death or serious injury.
• The danger can relate to the defendant or a third party (e.g., a passenger).
• Threats to property alone are not enough (see R v Baker and Wilkins).
• The defendant’s act must be directly caused by the feared harm.

In short, the law accepts that a person may commit an offence to avoid a greater, immediate personal harm, provided strict conditions are met.

The two-stage test (R v Martin)

Courts commonly use the R v Martin approach (developed for duress by threats and applied to duress of circumstances):

1. Subjective question
   Did the defendant reasonably believe they had good cause to fear death or serious injury?

2. Objective question
   Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing relevant characteristics of the defendant, have responded by acting as the defendant did?

Both parts must be satisfied. A genuine but unreasonable belief will not do; equally, a reasonable belief must still be paired with a proportionate and necessary response.

Imminence, immediacy, and causation

• The threat must be imminent and operating on the defendant’s mind at the time of the offence. It need not be “immediate” in the sense of happening that second, but it must be pressing and not a remote future risk (R v Abdul-Hussain).
• There must be a clear causal link between the perceived danger and the unlawful act. If the chain is broken, the defence fails.
• The danger may be mistaken, provided the belief in the danger was reasonable on the facts as the defendant thought them to be (see R v Cairns).

No safe escape and proportionate response

• No reasonable alternative: If a safe, practical course was available (e.g., waiting for police where time and safety permit), the defence fails.
• Proportionate response: The unlawful act should be no more than reasonably necessary to avoid the danger.
• Once safe, stop: The defendant should stop the unlawful conduct and contact the authorities as soon as it is safe to do so (R v Pommell).

Exclusions and self-induced risk

• Excluded offences: Duress is not a defence to murder (R v Howe) or attempted murder (R v Gotts). It may also be excluded for certain forms of treason.
• Self-induced risk: The defence will usually fail if the defendant voluntarily exposed themselves to the risk of coercion or violence, especially through association with known criminals where the risk was foreseeable (R v Hasan).

How it differs from duress by threats

• Source of pressure:
  • Duress of circumstances: external situation (e.g., road emergency).
  • Duress by threats: a person issues a specific threat to compel an offence.
• “Nominated offence”:
  • Duress by threats often involves a threatened demand to commit a particular crime.
  • Duress of circumstances does not require a demand; the response is to the situation.
• Common ground:
  • Both require a fear of death or serious injury, no safe alternative, and a reasonable response.

Key Examples or Case Studies

R v Willer [1986] 83 Cr App R 225

• Facts: The defendant drove on the pavement to escape a threatening group of youths and was charged with reckless driving.
• Result: The Court of Appeal said the jury should have been allowed to consider “necessity/duress of circumstances”.
• Use: Early recognition that a driving offence may be excused where the situation creates a real fear of serious harm.

R v Conway [1989] QB 290

• Facts: The defendant drove dangerously because he thought two men were about to attack his passenger.
• Result: Duress of circumstances should have been left to the jury. The focus is the perceived risk of death or serious injury to the driver or another.
• Use: Confirms the defence applies to driving offences and to threats concerning third parties.

R v Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652

• Facts: The defendant, disqualified from driving, drove because his wife threatened to kill herself if he did not take his stepson to work.
• Result: Set out the two-stage test: (1) reasonable belief in a serious threat; (2) would a person of reasonable firmness respond similarly?
• Use: The standard tool for judges’ directions in both duress by threats and duress of circumstances.

R v Abdul-Hussain [1999] Crim LR 570

• Facts: Defendants hijacked a plane, fearing execution if returned to Iraq.
• Result: The threat must be imminent and operative on the mind at the time of the offence, though not necessarily immediate.
• Use: Clarifies the “imminence” requirement and the need for a continuing, pressing danger.

R v Cairns [1999] Crim LR 137

• Facts: The defendant drove off with a person on his bonnet after fearing he and his passenger were under attack.
• Result: The threat need not be real if the defendant reasonably perceived it.
• Use: Reinforces that the jury assesses the situation as the defendant reasonably believed it to be.

R v Pommell [1995] 2 Cr App R 607

• Facts: The defendant took a gun from someone to prevent harm and kept it overnight; charged with possession.
• Result: Duress of circumstances is available to all crimes except murder, attempted murder, and some treason. The defendant must hand over the weapon when it is safe.
• Use: Shows the duty to desist and contact police once the danger has passed.

R v Baker and Wilkins (1997) Crim LR 497

• Facts: Damage to property to avoid harm to property.
• Result: Duress requires a threat of death or serious injury to a person, not merely to property.
• Use: Confirms the “threat to persons” requirement.

Practical Applications

• Run the Martin questions early:
  • Did your client reasonably believe there was a threat of death or serious injury?
  • Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing relevant characteristics, have acted the same way?
• Test imminence and causation:
  • Was the risk pressing and operating on the mind at the time?
  • Is there an unbroken link between the danger and the offence?
• Check for a safe route:
  • Could the client call, wait for, or move towards the police without serious risk?
  • Was there a practical alternative (e.g., retreat, delay, different route)?
• Keep actions proportionate:
  • Was the unlawful conduct strictly what was needed to avoid the danger?
  • Did the client stop as soon as it was safe and inform the authorities?
• Screen for exclusions:
  • Is the charge murder or attempted murder? If so, the defence does not apply.
  • Did the client voluntarily put themselves in a situation where coercion was foreseeable (e.g., association with violent gangs)? If yes, the defence may be barred.
• Evidence to gather:
  • Timeline of events and distances/times (imminence and alternatives)
  • 999 calls, phone logs, CCTV, dashcam, location data
  • Medical records (injuries, panic attacks), photos, witness statements
  • Proof of attempts to avoid the offence or seek help
• Courtroom focus:
  • Ask the judge for clear Martin directions.
  • Make the chain of causation simple and visual (e.g., map, timeline).
  • Distinguish clearly between duress of circumstances and duress by threats to avoid jury confusion.

Summary Checklist

• Duress of circumstances arises from the situation, not a person’s demand.
• Fear must be of death or serious injury to the defendant or another.
• Apply the two-stage Martin test (subjective belief; objective reasonableness).
• Threat must be imminent and operating on the mind at the time.
• There must be no safe and reasonable alternative.
• The response must be proportionate; stop once safe and contact police.
• Not available for murder or attempted murder; may be excluded for treason.
• Threats to property alone are not enough.
• Self-induced risk (foreseeable coercion) can defeat the defence.
• Leading cases: Willer, Conway, Martin, Abdul-Hussain, Cairns, Pommell.

Quick Reference