Duress.

Page 1

The D may have a defence of Duress. D must first prove that the test in R v Graham. The first is, was the D compelled to act as he did because he reasonably believed he has a good cause to fear death or serious injury, this is known as the subjective test. In the case of R v Martin it is stated that threats can also apply to family and friends which can be the basis of a defence. In D's case the threats weren't made explicitly to him but towards his family as a result of D's debt.Word's such as "big trouble" can comprehend the consequences to fear some injury close to death.

The second element of the test is whether a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the accused have responded in this way. R v Bowen stated that age, disability and mental illness can be taken in consideration; however, a low IQ doesn't apply. The ordinary man would only feel compelled to steal with the intention to steal the value when repaying Reggie. However, there was a possible implication of unknown injury or death, in the case of Valderrama-Vega entitles the jury to make an exception.

The D cannot have the defence if it can be proven he had a safe avenue of escape (R V Hudson and Taylor). However, in this case it was accepted police protection is not always effective. However, there was a period of time in between Reggie's threat on the first occasion, D was compelled to act when remembering the threat . Therefore, there was a extended period of time in which D was left alone and could have raised an alarm with police if D felt somewhat threatened by Reggie.

The threat must also be effective at the moment the crime is committed (R V Abdul Hussain). In the case of the D it was effective at the moment the crime was committed due to D foreseeing threat as a certainty immediately before , compelling him to steal. However, Reggie's threat prompted D to steal, but his threat hadn't specified him to keep the money and items for his possession.

D can only use the defence if the threats are in order to make him committed a specific offence (R V Cole). D was told to commit a specific offence, unless he stole money from Gwen he was told his debt would be reduced, when stealing the money which he had been told to steal D stole items of clothing and possessions. Although D was told to steal from Gwen, D wasn't entitled to rob the items from Gwen's possession, only money belonging to her.

Finally, where D is aware they may be put under Duress to commit offences he has brought upon himself therefore, cannot use the defence. R V Sharp states that a defence os unavailable where D joins a criminal gang which he knows is likely to arise violent behaviour. In terms of this case, D was reckless enough to get into debt in the first place, not repaying his debt over an appropriate time period would lead to violent threats. D put himself in a position where he knows that he is likely to be subjected to threats or actual violence f the £1000 isn't repaid.