Effectiveness Of Necessity And Duress Defences
Necessity and duress are defences in criminal law that can excuse otherwise criminal conduct under specific circumstances:
Necessity (Choice of Evils): The defendant commits a crime to prevent a greater harm.
Duress: The defendant commits a crime because of threats of death or serious harm from another person.
The effectiveness of these defences depends on legal criteria, including immediacy of harm, proportionality, and voluntariness.
1. Case Study: R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) – U.K. (Necessity)
Facts:
Shipwrecked sailors stranded at sea killed and ate a cabin boy to survive.
Judicial Interpretation:
Court rejected necessity as a defence for murder.
Emphasized that the law cannot justify taking an innocent life, even to prevent death of the actor.
Outcome:
Convicted of murder; sentence was commuted to six months.
Principle:
Necessity rarely applies to murder; courts are reluctant to allow life-taking even under extreme conditions.
2. Case Study: R v. Howe (1987) – U.K. (Duress)
Facts:
Defendants committed murder under threats from a gang leader.
Judicial Interpretation:
House of Lords held that duress is not a defence to murder or attempted murder.
Duress may excuse lesser offences but cannot justify taking an innocent life.
Outcome:
Convicted of murder; duress defence rejected.
Principle:
Duress is limited by the seriousness of the offence, particularly for murder.
3. Case Study: R v. Willer (1986) – U.K. (Necessity / Duress of Circumstances)
Facts:
Defendant drove on the pavement to escape a gang threatening him.
Judicial Interpretation:
Court accepted duress of circumstances (a form of necessity) because the defendant acted to avoid imminent harm.
Outcome:
Conviction quashed; acquittal granted.
Principle:
Necessity is effective when crime is committed to avoid immediate and serious danger, and actions are proportionate to threat.
4. Case Study: R v. Conway (1988) – U.K. (Necessity / Duress of Circumstances)
Facts:
Defendant drove recklessly to get medical help for injured person.
Judicial Interpretation:
Court held that necessity can justify illegal acts if the action is the only reasonable way to prevent harm.
Outcome:
Acquitted on the basis of necessity.
Principle:
Necessity is valid when harm prevented outweighs harm caused by criminal act.
5. Case Study: R v. Graham (1982) – U.K. (Duress)
Facts:
Defendant committed murder under threat from his homosexual partner.
Judicial Interpretation:
House of Lords established two-stage test for duress:
Was the defendant compelled to act as a reasonable person would under threat?
Did the defendant reasonably believe he faced a threat of death or serious injury?
Outcome:
Conviction upheld; duress defence partially considered but rejected due to foreseeability of resistance.
Principle:
Duress requires immediacy and reasonable perception of threat; not every fear suffices.
6. Case Study: United States v. Contento-Pachon (1984) – U.S. (Duress)
Facts:
Defendant smuggled drugs under threat of death from a criminal organization.
Judicial Interpretation:
Court applied duress defence, considering:
Immediate threat of death or serious harm
Lack of reasonable escape
Outcome:
Conviction overturned; duress accepted as a defence.
Principle:
U.S. courts recognize duress when threat is immediate, unavoidable, and proportional response is applied.
7. Case Study: R v. Shayler (2001) – U.K. (Necessity / Public Interest)
Facts:
Former intelligence officer leaked classified documents, claiming to prevent harm to national security.
Judicial Interpretation:
Court rejected necessity as a defence for breach of Official Secrets Act, noting alternative lawful avenues were available.
Outcome:
Convicted; necessity defence ineffective.
Principle:
Necessity fails if legal alternatives exist; it is not a blanket justification.
8. Case Study: R v. Hudson and Taylor (1971) – U.K. (Duress)
Facts:
Teenage girls committed perjury under threat from armed relatives.
Judicial Interpretation:
Court accepted duress defence, acknowledging the immediacy and severity of threat.
Outcome:
Conviction quashed; duress allowed.
Principle:
Duress is effective where threats are real, imminent, and unavoidable, especially for vulnerable defendants.
Key Observations from Case Law
| Aspect | Observation |
|---|---|
| Limitations | Duress and necessity cannot justify murder. |
| Immediacy | Threat or harm must be immediate and unavoidable. |
| Proportionality | The criminal act must be proportionate to the harm avoided. |
| Reasonable Belief | Defendant’s perception of threat is crucial for duress. |
| Availability of Alternatives | Defence fails if lawful alternatives exist. |
Conclusion
Necessity and duress are effective defences in avoiding minor or property-related offences, but strictly limited for serious crimes like murder.
Courts assess immediacy, proportionality, reasonable belief, and availability of alternatives.
Case law demonstrates that these defences are carefully scrutinized, balancing individual survival against public and legal interests.
When applied correctly, they prevent unjust punishment for acts committed under extreme circumstances.
RELATED Blog
comments