566:(1988) 3 AER 1025, the Court of Appeal dealt with a charge of reckless driving where the defendant had fled from police officers. His passenger had recently been attacked by a man with a shotgun, and screamed at the defendant to "drive off" when he saw the plain-clothed officers running toward the car. The court held that to establish "duress of circumstances", it was necessary for him to drive as he did believing it necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury to himself or another person. As evidence, the accused must be able to point to an "objective danger" or at least satisfy the requirement of reasonable belief. As a gloss,
691:... but in my judgment the defence of duress is not available to an accused who voluntarily exposes and submits himself to illegal compulsion. It is not merely a matter of joining in a criminal enterprise; it is a matter of joining in a criminal enterprise of such a nature that the defendant appreciated the nature of the enterprise itself and the attitudes of those in charge of it, so that when he was in fact subjected to compulsion he could fairly be said by a jury to have voluntarily exposed himself and submitted himself to such compulsion.
583:(1989) 1 AER 652 the defendant who drove while disqualified claimed that it was necessary for him to drive his son to work, because he feared that his mentally ill wife might commit suicide if her son did not arrive at work on time. Simon Brown J. defined the defence as pressure on the accused's will arising either from the wrongful threats or violence of another, or from other objective dangers threatening the accused or others. The requirements were that
307:
signing the guarantee agreement after the threat of non-completion of the main agreement was only a result of "commercial pressure", not economic duress. Just by observing the Laus' behaviour, and consideration of the situation before signing, there was no coercion amounting to a vitiation of consent. However, contrasting to cases involving business parties, the threat to do a lawful act will probably be duress if used against a vulnerable person.
634:(1995) 2 Cr. App. R. 607 the defendant was charged with possession of an illegal firearm, a sub-machine gun, which he claimed to have taken from another person in order to prevent that other from using it and to hand it to the police. There was some doubt as to how long the weapon had been in his possession, which resulted in his conviction because the jury decided that he had not acted as soon as was reasonable in the circumstances.
638:(1999) Crim LR 570 considered the requirement that the threat be imminent and operative even though its execution is not immediate. The defendants hijacked a plane in order to escape death at the hands of the Iraqi authorities. The court held that the defence was available as long as the crime was a reasonable and proportionate response to an imminent peril of death or serious injury. The threat need not be immediate, only imminent.
402:, "excuses what would otherwise be criminal conduct" rather than justifies it. Bingham draws a distinction here with self-defence regarding between the moral status of the victim: in a case of self-defence, the victim has themselves made an aggressive or criminal act towards the defendant. In a duress case, there is no such relationship of prior aggression. Bingham notes at paragraph 19:
675:
if a person voluntarily exposes and submits himself, as the appellant did, to illegal compulsion, he cannot rely on the duress to which he has voluntarily exposed himself as an excuse either in respect of the crimes he commits against his will or in respect of his continued but unwilling association with those capable of exercising upon him the duress which he calls in aid.
699:(1999) 2 Cr. App. R. 335 this was slightly modified at p344: "What a defendant has to be aware of is the risk that the group might try to coerce him into committing criminal offences of the type for which he is being tried by the use of violence or threats of violence." (On whether this is a subjective or objective test, see Ashworth: 2003.) The Lords in
363:. Since then there has been no specific enactment relating to duress but Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, c.25, provides that the defence must serve on the Court and the prosecution the nature of the accused's defence in general terms, and the matters in issue. This would seem to apply to the defence of duress, and in
474:(2003) it is held that the defendant need only prove he reasonably and genuinely believed there was a threat, i.e. the test is both subjective and objective in that the defendant's will must actually have been overwhelmed by the threat, and a reasonable person of average courage may also have felt compelled to act the same way under direction.
604:(1992) Crim LR 176 the accused successfully pleaded duress of circumstances to driving with excess alcohol because, following an incident in a pub which caused him to fear for his physical safety, he escaped in his car, only driving a short distance to safety and then abandoning the criminal activity as soon as reasonably possible. While in
771:
life, a reasonable person might reflect that one innocent human life is at least as valuable as their own or that of their loved one. In such a case a person cannot claim that they are choosing the lesser of two evils. Rather they are adopting the understandable but morally dubious principle that the end justifies the means. Similarly,
770:
underpinning the criminal law must be to protect innocent lives and to set a standard of behaviour which ordinary people are expected to observe if they are to avoid criminal responsibility. In cases where the choice is between the threat of death or serious injury and deliberately taking an innocent
536:
gave comprehensive guidance as to which characteristics might be relevant in the jury's consideration: age, sex, physical disability or recognised mental illness might limit a person's ability to act in self-defence, but the fact that the defendant was more vulnerable, timid or susceptible to threats
491:
but allowed a conditional discharge. The court was prepared to allow leniency because these women lived in a community where physical retaliation for co-operating with the police was routine, and they had no reasonable means, given their age, experience, and lack of physical strength, of avoiding the
328:
This is an exception to the general principle of criminal law that those who choose to break the law are held responsible for the crimes that they commit. The rationale of the exception is that the choice is not wholly voluntary. The Law
Commission (1977 at paras 2.44–2.46) recognised the logic that,
707:
Nothing should turn on foresight of the manner in which, in the event, the dominant party chooses to exploit the defendant's subservience. There need not be foresight of coercion to commit crimes, although it is not easy to envisage circumstances in which a party might be coerced to act lawfully. In
674:
A person may become associated with a sinister group of men with criminal objectives and coercive methods of ensuring that their lawless enterprises are carried out and thereby voluntarily expose himself to illegal compulsion, whether or not the group is or becomes a proscribed organisation ...
299:
Only late in the 20th century was escape allowed if the threat involved illegitimate economic harm. A threat is always "illegitimate" if it is to do an unlawful act, such as breaking a contract knowing non-payment may push someone out of business. However, threatening to do a lawful act will usually
665:
UKHL 22 the defendant was the driver for a group that organised prostitution and had connections with a second organisation of violent drug dealers. He was charged with burglary in circumstances where he and his family had been threatened, and he had been accompanied to the scene of the crime by an
496:
1994 Crim. LR 582 in which a man robbed several building societies to avoid the threats of a debt collector. Simon Brown LJ. at p583 held that the peril relied on to support the plea of necessity lacked imminence, and the degree of directness and immediacy required of a sufficient nexus between the
787:
1 Cr App R 143 involved two prison inmates who had escaped. They sought to utilise the defence of duress of circumstances on the grounds that they were compelled to escape after becoming depressed whilst in prison, and fearing that unless they escaped they would become suicidal. The court decided
306:
the Pao family threatened to not complete a share swap deal aimed at purchasing their company's building unless the Lau family agreed to change a guarantee agreement assuring the Paos would receive the rise in the swapped shares' prices when repurchased. The Privy
Council advised that the Laus
456:
suggests that the threat must be directed, if not to the defendant or a member of his immediate family, to a person for whose safety the defendant would reasonably regard himself as responsible which, if strictly applied, would be consistent with the rationale of the duress exception.
886:, WTLR 807, where the Court of Appeal held that a nephew who threatened his old Auntie Muriel with court proceedings if she did not reduce his rent as a beneficiary allowed was actual undue influence. This is the same as duress. Cf US Restatement (Second) of Contracts 1979
497:
suggested peril and the offence charged. The one making the threats had not nominated the crimes to be committed by the defendant. He had simply indicated that he wanted the defendant to repay the debt which would not necessarily involve the commission of an offence.
189:
625:
duress of circumstances. The court held that duress did not include threats or the fear of long-term psychological injury even though that might be serious psychological injury. Since there were other lawful remedies other than immediate self-help, duress was
370:
A rigorous analysis of the doctrine of duress is difficult because it is invariably reliant upon the particular facts in a given case, and there is usually an overlap between duress and the defence of necessity. See, for example, comments by Lord Woolf CJ in
757:
Howe was a member of a gang that tortured and strangled a man. On a second occasion, Howe strangled the victim. He claimed to have acted out of fear for one Murray who, through threatened and actual violence, had gained control of the group. Previously, in
415:
The law limits the nature of the threat that has to be placed on a person for them to qualify as being under duress. The threat must be one of death or serious personal injury, either to the defendant or to his immediate family or someone close to him. In
349:
Defences that the accused has been set up and allegations of duress, which used to at one time to be rare, have multiplied. We wish to alert judges to the need to scrutinise applications for disclosure of details about informants with very great care.
482:
The circumstances in which the threats were made must also have offered no reasonable opportunity for evasive action. But, taken together, the questions of causation and immediacy have created a weakness in the limitations placed on the defence. In
440:
escaped criminals compelled H to dispose of two corpses by holding his wife hostage, such that the threats to her "would have been operative during the entire period of his absence" and "his only concern must have been for the safety of the woman".
285:
Duress involves illegitimate threats. The common law long allowed a claim if duress was of a physical nature. So long as a threat is just one of the reasons a person enters an agreement, even if not the main reason, the agreement may be avoided. In
163:
513:
157, the Court of Appeal held person with a low IQ, short of mental impairment or mental defectiveness, was not necessarily less courageous or less able to withstand threats and pressure than an ordinary person. The relevant test (laid down in
557:
There have been an increasing number of cases pleading duress arising from the general pressure of circumstances, whether arising directly from human action or not. To that extent, this subset of duress seeks to borrow some of the language of
469:
1994 Crim. LR 582, there must be a direct causal link between these threats and the defendant's decision to break the law. Thus, the defendant's normal inhibitions must be overwhelmed by their belief in the efficacy of the threat. Following
354:
The prosecution's difficulty was at one time the greater when the issue of duress had not been raised by the defence until the trial was under way. To counter these problems, the Law
Commission (1993 at paras 33–34) recommended that the
492:
implementation of the threat. This weakened the requirement that the threat's implementation must be so imminent that the defendant had to decide in that moment whether to break the law, and it has given rise to cases such as
733:
involving the death of the sovereign. In general, courts do not accept a defence of duress when harm done by the defendant is greater than the court's perception of the harm threatened. This is a test of proportionality. In
176:
150:
427:
The defendant must have a reasonable and genuinely held fear of death or serious harm, usually in the form of specific threats directed at the defendant, his immediate family or someone for whom he feels responsible. In
591:
a jury should determine whether the accused was "impelled to act as he did because of a result of what he reasonably believed to be the situation, he had good cause to fear ... death or serious physical injury";
608:(1997) Crim LR 497 (CA) a child's mother and another broke down the door to the father's house to recover the child from his possession. The action was being taken to defend the child so three defences were raised:
248:
574:
Whether 'duress of circumstances' is called 'duress' or 'necessity' does not matter. What is important is that, whatever it is called, it is subject to the same limitations as the 'do this or else' species of
337:... duress is a unique defence in that it is so much more likely than any other to depend on assertions which are peculiarly difficult for the prosecution to investigate or subsequently to disprove.
329:
if the defence was going to be allowed at all, it should be applied to all offences. But this recommendation has not been adopted because it is felt that, in the case of the most serious crimes such as
795:
2 WLR 754 (House of Lords); Lord Woolf remarked in obiter that the defence should be extended to include acts designed to protect a person's mental, as well as physical health, from serious injury.
296:
to exit a business by getting his goons to make death threats to Barton's family. Even though Barton was tough, and would have probably done the payout regardless, he could avoid the agreement.
202:
314:. The blackmailer does not have to defend the lawful act they threaten (for example, revealing a secret), but they must defend the demand of money from a person highly vulnerable to them.
26:
defence, operating in favour of those who commit crimes because they are forced or compelled to do so by the circumstances, or the threats of another. The doctrine arises not only in
595:
a jury should also determine whether "a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the accused, have responded to that situation" in the same manner.
1465:
616:
which allows a reasonable excuse as a defence to the damage of property. It was held that a child is not property capable of being defended for the purposes of the section.
333:, no threat to the defendant, however extreme, should excuse commission of the crime (Elliott; 1989). The defence is also open to abuse. Smith (1994 at p584) commented:
788:
that as a matter of public policy, the source of the duress must be from an external source and not from the internal thought processes associated with mental illness.
853:
622:
which includes the defence of others both inherently and through the use of reasonable force to prevent the commission of a crime under s3 Criminal Law Act 1967.
1948:
127:
695:
Thus, if the defendant knows what the group does and that some violent people are involved, they cannot rely on the violence threatened as duress. But in
588:"from an objective standpoint, the accused can be said to be acting reasonably and proportionately in order to avoid a threat of death or serious injury";
487:
1971 2 QB 202, two young women who had witnessed a serious assault were intimidated and refused to identify the attacker in court. They were charged with
1888:
1475:
261:
630:
The danger must be such that the accused cannot reasonably, taking into account any of their relevant characteristics, be expected to act otherwise. In
237:
105:
1052:
116:
406:
The victim of a crime committed under duress may be assumed to be morally innocent, having shown no hostility or aggression towards the defendant.
1898:
1279:
879:
1117:
890:
389:
852:, concerning strikes, the threat to break a contract while in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute is a protected act under the
907:
213:
1586:
887:
2022:
1368:
804:
77:
1630:
1442:
783:
The courts have held that the duress must come from an extraneous source, rather than internal thought processes. The case of
753:
of ordinary courage sharing the defendant's characteristics have responded in the same way to the threats? (an objective test)
1598:
1520:
1412:
746:
Whether the defendant acted as he did because he honestly believed that his life was in immediate danger (a subjective test)
527:
If so, did he respond as a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing the characteristics of the defendant would have done?
1883:
1505:
1470:
1500:
1110:
1739:
1325:
1289:
1233:
1858:
1271:
708:
holding that there must be foresight of coercion to commit crimes of the kind with which the defendant is charged,
275:
51:
1576:
1923:
1724:
1224:
2045:
1655:
1581:
1103:
1660:
1260:
841:
70:
791:
This decision may well have been reached to prevent such an absurdity from passing into law however as in
1827:
1619:
1408:
1373:
1315:
1228:
619:
387:—its extension to cover duress by circumstances did not occur until the 1990s, specifically the case of
1789:
1455:
1390:
1379:
271:
1744:
1614:
1538:
1205:
1200:
613:
559:
360:
1709:
1603:
1400:
1330:
1249:
510:
63:
452:, (where the threat related in part to the defendant's boyfriend) the specimen direction of the
1908:
1650:
1335:
524:
Was the defendant impelled to act as he did because he feared death or serious physical injury?
453:
1873:
1794:
1749:
1593:
1404:
1353:
356:
302:
139:
1893:
1863:
1437:
1432:
1416:
1126:
970:
323:
47:
31:
27:
948:
367:
2004 EWCA Crim 3279, there had been a specific, although late, reliance upon the defence.
8:
1918:
1676:
1635:
1528:
1284:
1220:
1215:
767:
533:
883:
2000:
1665:
1548:
1495:
1363:
1210:
1165:
1155:
1140:
341:
This approach has been adopted by the judiciary, most notably by the House of Lords in
288:
94:
35:
845:
1938:
1868:
1571:
1427:
1346:
750:
538:
226:
541:. Also excluded would be self-induced incapacity due to drunkenness or drug-taking (
1913:
1804:
1754:
1625:
1561:
1422:
936:
911:
809:
726:
293:
865:
827:
152:
Universe
Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v. International Transport Workers' Federation
1609:
1490:
1480:
1188:
1150:
1083:
Legislating the
Criminal Code. Offences against the Person and General Principles
894:
1027:
762:(1975) AC 653, the Lords had held by a majority that duress was available to an
654:
put themself in a position in which they were likely to be subjected to threats.
1995:
1943:
1878:
1784:
1779:
1774:
1704:
1686:
1645:
1533:
1447:
1341:
1299:
1145:
2039:
1903:
1358:
1160:
849:
1990:
1976:
1799:
424:
would not be sufficient threat to overbear the will of an ordinary person.
1254:
687:(1987) 86 Cr. App R 47 involved a group of shoplifters, the court held:
432:, the threat was immediately and directly made to the defendant. In the
2014:
1981:
1958:
1769:
1699:
1485:
1182:
1095:
1071:
Elliott, 'Necessity, Duress and Self-Defence' Criminal Law Review 611.
775:(1992) 2 AC 412 held that duress is not a defence to attempted murder.
763:
384:
23:
1452:
Attempting to choke, &c. in order to commit any indictable offence
651:
failed to escape from the threats when they could have done so, and/or
1986:
1933:
1764:
1759:
1729:
661:
567:
433:
398:
383:
Duress as a defence has existed for many centuries and originates in
311:
292:
Mr
Armstrong tried to "strong-arm" Mr Barton into paying him a large
191:
Dimskal
Shipping Co SA v International Transport Workers' Federation
1966:
1928:
1832:
1734:
1194:
646:
The most recent cases have involved situations where the defendant
421:
420:, the Court of Appeal held that a threat to expose the defendant's
1853:
1848:
1822:
1714:
1670:
1510:
1460:
1294:
730:
546:
488:
396:
The defence of duress (by threat), according to Lord
Bingham in
165:
B&S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green
Publications Ltd
1566:
722:
500:
330:
55:
1068:
A Ashworth, 'Commentary on R v Safi' Criminal Law Review 721.
1719:
1694:
766:. On this occasion, the Lords held that one of the relevant
760:
Director of Public
Prosecutions for Northern Ireland v Lynch
1971:
1640:
1556:
739:
670:(1977) NI 20, involving the IRA, Lowry LCJ, said at p 33:
854:
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
1076:
Criminal Law. Report on Defences of General Application
359:
be shifted to the defendant to establish duress on the
537:
than a normal person were not characteristics of the
178:
Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpact Banking Corp
1889:
Assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty
1476:
Assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty
1884:Assault with intent to resist lawful apprehension
1471:Assault with intent to resist lawful apprehension
1053:Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice
310:An obvious case involving "lawful act duress" is
2037:
683:(1987) QB 853 involved a gang of robbers, while
250:Mutual Finance Ltd v John Wetton & Sons Ltd
30:but also in civil law, where it is relevant to
1085:(1993) Law Commission Report No. 218. Cm 2370.
937:Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
1111:
679:In cases involving less serious criminality,
71:
1078:(1977) Law Commission Report No. 83. Cm 556.
964:
501:The characteristics of the reasonable person
1118:
1104:
908:R v Attorney General for England and Wales
552:
215:R v Attorney General for England and Wales
78:
64:
1438:Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm
1125:
805:Vitiating factors in the law of contract
378:
2038:
1631:Preventing the lawful burial of a body
1443:Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
738:(1987) AC 417 the court held that the
203:Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co
1599:Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred
1099:
59:
1506:Offences Against the Person Act 1861
13:
666:armed man. In the earlier case of
641:
518:1982 1 AER 801) had two elements:
14:
2057:
1899:Encouraging or assisting a crime
1859:Perverting the course of justice
1280:Encouraging or assisting a crime
778:
276:unconscionability in English law
85:
52:Unconscionability in English law
2023:History of English criminal law
1914:Obstruction of a police officer
1577:Fear or provocation of violence
1045:
1020:
1011:
1002:
993:
984:
975:
317:
41:
1924:Refusing to assist a constable
1740:Taking without owner's consent
955:
941:
930:
917:
899:
871:
859:
833:
821:
460:
1:
1944:Fabrication of false evidence
1656:Misconduct in a public office
1582:Harassment, alarm or distress
1156:Regulatory (lowered mens rea)
1062:
971:[2005] UKHL {{{num}}}
842:D & C Builders Ltd v Rees
716:
410:
1661:Misfeasance in public office
1261:Ignorantia juris non excusat
636:R v Abdul Hussain and others
477:
7:
1828:Cheating the public revenue
1620:Effecting a public mischief
1466:Assault with intent to rape
798:
703:clearly stated at para 37:
10:
2062:
1904:Escape from lawful custody
1790:Fraud by abuse of position
1456:Assault with intent to rob
1380:Category:Criminal defences
848:, 2 QB 617. Note that in
321:
45:
2020:For obsolete aspects see
2009:
1957:
1841:
1813:
1755:Misappropriation of funds
1687:Offences against property
1685:
1547:
1519:
1389:
1369:Diminished responsibility
1308:
1270:
1242:
1174:
1133:
1088:JC Smith, 'Commentary on
272:English unjust enrichment
269:
258:
245:
234:
223:
210:
199:
186:
173:
160:
147:
136:
124:
113:
102:
91:
1842:Offences against justice
1615:Outraging public decency
1539:Sexual Offences Act 2003
1340:inc. participation in a
1250:Lesser included offences
1206:Intention in English law
1201:Intention (criminal law)
815:
721:Duress is no defence to
614:Criminal Damage Act 1971
361:balance of probabilities
300:not be illegitimate. In
1092:Criminal Law Review 582
1028:"Duress in English Law"
923:approving a comment in
553:Duress by circumstances
438:R v Hurley & Murray
1959:Other common law areas
1909:Obstruction of justice
1651:Accessory (legal term)
1413:Corporate manslaughter
714:
693:
677:
577:
531:
454:Judicial Studies Board
408:
352:
339:
1874:Misprision of treason
1795:Conspiracy to defraud
1750:Handling stolen goods
1594:Public Order Act 1986
1549:Public order offences
785:R v Rodger & Rose
705:
689:
672:
606:R v Baker and Wilkins
572:
520:
485:R v Hudson and Taylor
404:
379:History and reasoning
365:R v Tyrell and others
347:
335:
303:Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
140:Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
20:Duress in English law
2046:English criminal law
1894:Harboring a fugitive
1864:Witness intimidation
1814:Forgery, personation
1433:Concealment of birth
1127:English criminal law
324:English criminal law
48:English contract law
1949:Rescuing a prisoner
1919:Wasting police time
1677:Dereliction of duty
1636:Breach of the peace
1354:Prevention of crime
1216:Criminal negligence
893:6 July 2010 at the
712:mis-stated the law.
2015:English law portal
2001:Criminal procedure
1666:Abuse of authority
1496:False imprisonment
1347:Medical procedures
1175:Elements of crimes
710:R v Baker and Ward
697:R v Baker and Ward
289:Barton v Armstrong
128:The Atlantic Baron
95:Barton v Armstrong
16:Common law defence
2033:
2032:
1939:Contempt of court
1869:Witness tampering
1587:intent aggravates
1572:Unlawful assembly
1428:Child destruction
1272:Inchoate offences
1134:Classes of crimes
751:reasonable person
742:should consider:
729:, or, seemingly,
539:reasonable person
282:
281:
262:Norreys v Zeffert
227:Williams v Bayley
2053:
1805:Webcam blackmail
1626:disorderly house
1562:Violent disorder
1423:Unlawful killing
1391:Offences against
1229:Strict liability
1120:
1113:
1106:
1097:
1096:
1081:Law Commission,
1074:Law Commission,
1057:
1049:
1043:
1042:
1040:
1038:
1024:
1018:
1015:
1009:
1006:
1000:
997:
991:
988:
982:
979:
973:
968:
962:
959:
953:
945:
939:
934:
928:
921:
915:
903:
897:
875:
869:
863:
857:
837:
831:
825:
810:Marital coercion
727:attempted murder
294:golden parachute
251:
238:Silsbee v Webber
216:
192:
179:
166:
153:
106:Astley v Reyonds
80:
73:
66:
57:
56:
2061:
2060:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2029:
2005:
1953:
1837:
1815:
1809:
1725:Criminal damage
1681:
1610:Public nuisance
1543:
1521:Sexual offences
1515:
1491:Child abduction
1392:
1385:
1331:Loss of control
1304:
1266:
1238:
1170:
1129:
1124:
1065:
1060:
1050:
1046:
1036:
1034:
1026:
1025:
1021:
1016:
1012:
1007:
1003:
998:
994:
989:
985:
980:
976:
969:
965:
960:
956:
946:
942:
935:
931:
922:
918:
904:
900:
895:Wayback Machine
876:
872:
864:
860:
838:
834:
826:
822:
818:
801:
781:
768:public policies
719:
668:R v Fitzpatrick
657:
644:
642:Gang membership
598:
555:
534:Stuart-Smith LJ
530:
503:
480:
463:
413:
381:
357:burden of proof
326:
320:
283:
278:
265:
254:
249:
241:
230:
219:
214:
206:
195:
190:
182:
177:
169:
164:
156:
151:
143:
132:
120:
109:
98:
87:
84:
54:
46:Main articles:
44:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2059:
2049:
2048:
2031:
2030:
2028:
2027:
2018:
2010:
2007:
2006:
2004:
2003:
1998:
1993:
1984:
1979:
1974:
1969:
1963:
1961:
1955:
1954:
1952:
1951:
1946:
1941:
1936:
1931:
1926:
1921:
1916:
1911:
1906:
1901:
1896:
1891:
1886:
1881:
1879:Jury tampering
1876:
1871:
1866:
1861:
1856:
1851:
1845:
1843:
1839:
1838:
1836:
1835:
1830:
1825:
1819:
1817:
1811:
1810:
1808:
1807:
1802:
1797:
1792:
1787:
1785:Fraud Act 2006
1782:
1780:Theft Act 1978
1777:
1775:Theft Act 1968
1772:
1767:
1762:
1757:
1752:
1747:
1742:
1737:
1732:
1727:
1722:
1717:
1712:
1707:
1705:Cheating (law)
1702:
1697:
1691:
1689:
1683:
1682:
1680:
1679:
1674:
1668:
1663:
1658:
1653:
1648:
1646:Forcible entry
1643:
1638:
1633:
1628:
1622:
1617:
1612:
1606:
1601:
1596:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1579:
1574:
1569:
1564:
1559:
1553:
1551:
1545:
1544:
1542:
1541:
1536:
1534:Sexual assault
1531:
1525:
1523:
1517:
1516:
1514:
1513:
1508:
1503:
1498:
1493:
1488:
1483:
1478:
1473:
1468:
1463:
1458:
1453:
1450:
1448:Common assault
1445:
1440:
1435:
1430:
1425:
1420:
1397:
1395:
1387:
1386:
1384:
1383:
1376:
1371:
1366:
1361:
1356:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1344:
1342:sporting event
1333:
1328:
1323:
1318:
1312:
1310:
1306:
1305:
1303:
1302:
1300:Common purpose
1297:
1292:
1287:
1282:
1276:
1274:
1268:
1267:
1265:
1264:
1257:
1252:
1246:
1244:
1240:
1239:
1237:
1236:
1231:
1218:
1213:
1208:
1203:
1198:
1191:
1186:
1178:
1176:
1172:
1171:
1169:
1168:
1163:
1158:
1153:
1148:
1143:
1137:
1135:
1131:
1130:
1123:
1122:
1115:
1108:
1100:
1094:
1093:
1086:
1079:
1072:
1069:
1064:
1061:
1059:
1058:
1056:(2008) 17–119.
1044:
1019:
1010:
1001:
992:
983:
974:
963:
961:2 Cr App R 607
954:
952:EWCA Crim 1977
940:
929:
916:
898:
870:
858:
832:
819:
817:
814:
813:
812:
807:
800:
797:
780:
777:
755:
754:
747:
718:
715:
656:
655:
652:
648:
643:
640:
628:
627:
623:
617:
597:
596:
593:
589:
585:
554:
551:
529:
528:
525:
521:
502:
499:
479:
476:
462:
459:
412:
409:
380:
377:
322:Main article:
319:
316:
280:
279:
270:
267:
266:
259:
256:
255:
246:
243:
242:
235:
232:
231:
224:
221:
220:
211:
208:
207:
200:
197:
196:
187:
184:
183:
174:
171:
170:
161:
158:
157:
148:
145:
144:
137:
134:
133:
125:
122:
121:
117:Skeate v Beale
114:
111:
110:
103:
100:
99:
92:
89:
88:
83:
82:
75:
68:
60:
43:
40:
22:is a complete
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2058:
2047:
2044:
2043:
2041:
2026:
2024:
2019:
2017:
2016:
2012:
2011:
2008:
2002:
1999:
1997:
1994:
1992:
1988:
1985:
1983:
1980:
1978:
1975:
1973:
1970:
1968:
1965:
1964:
1962:
1960:
1956:
1950:
1947:
1945:
1942:
1940:
1937:
1935:
1932:
1930:
1927:
1925:
1922:
1920:
1917:
1915:
1912:
1910:
1907:
1905:
1902:
1900:
1897:
1895:
1892:
1890:
1887:
1885:
1882:
1880:
1877:
1875:
1872:
1870:
1867:
1865:
1862:
1860:
1857:
1855:
1852:
1850:
1847:
1846:
1844:
1840:
1834:
1831:
1829:
1826:
1824:
1821:
1820:
1818:
1812:
1806:
1803:
1801:
1798:
1796:
1793:
1791:
1788:
1786:
1783:
1781:
1778:
1776:
1773:
1771:
1768:
1766:
1763:
1761:
1758:
1756:
1753:
1751:
1748:
1746:
1743:
1741:
1738:
1736:
1733:
1731:
1728:
1726:
1723:
1721:
1718:
1716:
1713:
1711:
1708:
1706:
1703:
1701:
1698:
1696:
1693:
1692:
1690:
1688:
1684:
1678:
1675:
1672:
1669:
1667:
1664:
1662:
1659:
1657:
1654:
1652:
1649:
1647:
1644:
1642:
1639:
1637:
1634:
1632:
1629:
1627:
1623:
1621:
1618:
1616:
1613:
1611:
1607:
1605:
1602:
1600:
1597:
1595:
1592:
1588:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1580:
1578:
1575:
1573:
1570:
1568:
1565:
1563:
1560:
1558:
1555:
1554:
1552:
1550:
1546:
1540:
1537:
1535:
1532:
1530:
1527:
1526:
1524:
1522:
1518:
1512:
1509:
1507:
1504:
1502:
1499:
1497:
1494:
1492:
1489:
1487:
1484:
1482:
1479:
1477:
1474:
1472:
1469:
1467:
1464:
1462:
1459:
1457:
1454:
1451:
1449:
1446:
1444:
1441:
1439:
1436:
1434:
1431:
1429:
1426:
1424:
1421:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1399:
1398:
1396:
1394:
1388:
1382:
1381:
1377:
1375:
1372:
1370:
1367:
1365:
1362:
1360:
1359:Lawful excuse
1357:
1355:
1352:
1348:
1345:
1343:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1334:
1332:
1329:
1327:
1324:
1322:
1319:
1317:
1314:
1313:
1311:
1307:
1301:
1298:
1296:
1293:
1291:
1288:
1286:
1283:
1281:
1278:
1277:
1275:
1273:
1269:
1263:
1262:
1258:
1256:
1253:
1251:
1248:
1247:
1245:
1241:
1235:
1232:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1219:
1217:
1214:
1212:
1209:
1207:
1204:
1202:
1199:
1197:
1196:
1192:
1190:
1187:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1179:
1177:
1173:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1159:
1157:
1154:
1152:
1149:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1139:
1138:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1121:
1116:
1114:
1109:
1107:
1102:
1101:
1098:
1091:
1087:
1084:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1070:
1067:
1066:
1055:
1054:
1048:
1033:
1032:Ipsa Loquitur
1029:
1023:
1014:
1005:
999:(1967) VR 526
996:
987:
978:
972:
967:
958:
951:
950:
944:
938:
933:
926:
920:
913:
910:
909:
902:
896:
892:
889:
885:
882:
881:
880:Daniel v Drew
874:
867:
862:
855:
851:
850:UK labour law
847:
844:
843:
836:
829:
824:
820:
811:
808:
806:
803:
802:
796:
794:
789:
786:
779:Mental health
776:
774:
769:
765:
761:
752:
748:
745:
744:
743:
741:
737:
732:
728:
724:
713:
711:
704:
702:
698:
692:
688:
686:
682:
676:
671:
669:
664:
663:
653:
650:
649:
647:
639:
637:
633:
624:
621:
618:
615:
611:
610:
609:
607:
603:
594:
590:
587:
586:
584:
582:
576:
571:
569:
565:
561:
550:
548:
544:
540:
535:
526:
523:
522:
519:
517:
512:
508:
498:
495:
490:
486:
475:
473:
468:
458:
455:
451:
447:
442:
439:
435:
431:
425:
423:
419:
407:
403:
401:
400:
394:
392:
391:
386:
376:
375:at Para. 42.
374:
368:
366:
362:
358:
351:
346:
344:
338:
334:
332:
325:
315:
313:
308:
305:
304:
297:
295:
291:
290:
277:
273:
268:
264:
263:
257:
253:
252:
244:
240:
239:
233:
229:
228:
222:
218:
217:
209:
205:
204:
198:
194:
193:
185:
181:
180:
172:
168:
167:
159:
155:
154:
146:
142:
141:
135:
130:
129:
123:
119:
118:
112:
108:
107:
101:
97:
96:
90:
81:
76:
74:
69:
67:
62:
61:
58:
53:
49:
39:
37:
33:
29:
25:
21:
2021:
2013:
1816:and cheating
1800:Fare evasion
1409:Manslaughter
1378:
1374:Intoxication
1320:
1316:Self-defence
1259:
1211:Recklessness
1193:
1181:
1089:
1082:
1075:
1051:
1047:
1035:. Retrieved
1031:
1022:
1017:Crim. LR 510
1013:
1004:
995:
986:
977:
966:
957:
947:
943:
932:
924:
919:
906:
901:
884:EWCA Civ 507
878:
873:
861:
840:
835:
823:
792:
790:
784:
782:
772:
759:
756:
735:
720:
709:
706:
700:
696:
694:
690:
685:R v Shepherd
684:
680:
678:
673:
667:
660:
658:
645:
635:
631:
629:
620:self-defence
605:
601:
599:
580:
578:
573:
563:
556:
542:
532:
515:
506:
504:
493:
484:
481:
471:
466:
464:
449:
445:
443:
437:
429:
426:
417:
414:
405:
397:
395:
388:
382:
372:
369:
364:
353:
348:
342:
340:
336:
327:
318:Criminal law
309:
301:
298:
287:
284:
260:
247:
236:
225:
212:
201:
188:
175:
162:
149:
138:
126:
115:
104:
93:
86:Duress cases
42:Contract law
32:contract law
28:criminal law
19:
18:
1417:Infanticide
1255:Concurrence
949:R v Shayler
914:, EMLR 499
632:R v Pommell
570:noted that
511:Cr. App. R.
465:As seen in
461:Causal link
390:R v Pommell
373:R v Shayler
345:2 WLR 335:
1770:Cybercrime
1700:Dishonesty
1624:Keeping a
1501:Harassment
1486:Kidnapping
1393:the person
1285:Conspiracy
1183:Actus reus
1166:Common law
1146:Either way
1141:Indictable
1063:References
1037:23 October
927:2 Cr App R
846:EWCA Civ 3
764:accomplice
717:Exceptions
602:DPP v Bell
581:R v Martin
564:R v Conway
516:R v Graham
450:R v Wright
446:R v Conway
444:Following
434:Australian
430:R v Graham
411:The threat
385:common law
36:trusts law
24:common law
1934:Espionage
1765:Extortion
1760:Blackmail
1745:Deception
1730:Squatting
1326:Necessity
1290:Accessory
1243:Doctrines
1234:Omissions
1225:Vicarious
1221:Corporate
1189:Causation
1161:Statutory
990:1 AER 801
981:1 AER 122
868:, AC 614
830:, AC 104
773:R v Gotts
681:R v Sharp
662:R v Hasan
612:s5(2)(b)
600:Thus, in
568:Woolf LJ.
560:necessity
543:R v Flatt
507:R v Bowen
478:Immediacy
436:case of
418:R v Singh
399:R v Hasan
312:blackmail
2040:Category
1996:Evidence
1977:Property
1967:Contract
1929:Sedition
1833:Uttering
1735:Trespass
1710:Burglary
1608:Causing
1604:Nuisance
1401:Homicide
1364:Insanity
1309:Defences
1195:Mens rea
1090:R v Cole
891:Archived
856:, s 219.
799:See also
749:Would a
494:R v Cole
472:R v Safi
467:R v Cole
422:adultery
1991:estates
1854:Perjury
1849:Bribery
1823:Forgery
1715:Robbery
1673:of oath
1671:Perjury
1511:Treason
1481:Battery
1461:Robbery
1336:Consent
1295:Attempt
1151:Summary
912:UKPC 22
793:Shayler
731:treason
626:denied.
575:duress.
547:Crim LR
489:perjury
1987:Trusts
1567:Affray
1405:Murder
1321:Duress
1008:QB 290
925:Turner
866:UKPC 2
828:UKPC 2
723:murder
549:576).
331:murder
131:QB 705
2025:table
1982:Wills
1720:Theft
1695:Arson
816:Notes
701:Hasan
562:. In
545:1996
343:R v H
1989:and
1972:Tort
1641:Rout
1557:Riot
1529:Rape
1039:2019
905:See
888:§176
877:See
839:See
740:jury
736:Howe
448:and
274:and
50:and
34:and
659:In
592:and
579:In
505:In
2042::
1415:/
1411:/
1407:/
1227:/
1223:/
1030:.
725:,
509:2
393:.
38:.
1419:)
1403:(
1119:e
1112:t
1105:v
1041:.
79:e
72:t
65:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.