What is the difference between compulsion and duress

The fourth element should be used only in cases of prison escape. See United States v. Solano , 10 F. Bailey , U. Although not an element in non-escape cases, whether the defendant surrendered to authorities upon reaching a point of safety is nevertheless relevant to whether the third element is satisfied.

United States v. Zaragoza-Moreira , F. Ibarra-Pino , F. Duress is a defence at common law to all crimes except murder, attempted murder and treason involving the death of the sovereign: R v Gotts [] 2 AC The defence is not available to a person charged with murder as a principal or as an aider, abettor, counsellor or procurer: R v Howe [] A.

There is no definitive statement of the scope of the common law defence of duress. However, a distillation of various authorities has led to the Court of Appeal, in R v Graham , 74 Cr. All of the authorities recognising duress as a defence have involved threats of death or grievous bodily harm. In R v Quayle [] 1 All ER , it was held that "an imminent danger of physical injury" was required.

The threat may relate to the defendant or a member of his immediate family or alternatively to a person for whose safety the defendant would reasonably regard himself as responsible: R v Wright [] Crim. The fact that the defendant believes that the threat will be carried out if he does not commit the offence is not, of itself, sufficient. This is unless it can be shown that a person of reasonable firmness sharing the characteristics of the defendant would not have yielded to the threat: R v Howe [] A.

As a result, the defendant's belief in the threat must be objectively reasonable as well as subjectively genuine: R v Hasan [] 2 AC When considering the characteristics of the defendant, pregnancy, serious physical disability or recognised mental illness may be relevant.

However, in most cases it is probably only the age and sex of the defendant that is capable of being relevant. The reference to a person of reasonable firmness makes it clear that intoxication cannot be a relevant characteristic. The defence will only be available where the defendant has been subjected to threats directing him to commit a specific crime and he has complied by committing that crime. It is not available where the defendant has committed a crime in order to escape from other unrelated demands.

The loan shark threatened him and his girlfriend with serious violence, unless he repaid the money. The appellant then robbed several building societies in order to repay the money. No Reasonable Opportunity for Escape The duress defense also requires that the defendant have no reasonable avenue for escape.

Limitations on Duress Some states provide that the defense of duress is unavailable for certain crimes, like murder. Talk to a Lawyer Start here to find criminal defense lawyers near you. Practice Area Please select Zip Code. How it Works Briefly tell us about your case Provide your contact information Choose attorneys to contact you.

Legal Information. Criminal Law Information. Proof and Defenses in Criminal Cases. Getting a Lawyer for your Criminal Case. Steps in a Criminal Defense Case. Arraignment: Your First Court Appearance. Plea Bargains in a Criminal Case. Legal Elements of Common Crimes. Expungement and Criminal Records. Should I just plead guilty and avoid a trial? Is the public defender a real lawyer? Can I change defense lawyers after I've hired one? How long after arrest do I find out what the charges are?

See All Common Questions. Related Products More. Criminal Law: A Desk Reference. Legal Research. The Criminal Law Handbook. View More. How It Works Briefly tell us about your case Provide your contact information Choose attorneys to contact you. The principal must have no other avenue of escape and the act must be proportionate. The exclusion of "robbery" and "assault with a weapon" from the defence of duress violates s.

C, s. At common law, duress is an available defence to any offences short of murder. There are three elements to the defence. The elements have been set out as: [7]. As with all affirmative defences, if the defence is raised, the Crown has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the elements is not available.

The threat need not be of immediate death or bodily harm. The defence will not be available through the common law where the accused puts themselves in a position where they are likely to receive threats.

The standard used is "objective-subjective", which is the same for the defence of necessity. The accused must present "some evidence" on the necessary elements of the defence. Only then does the burden move to the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused not acting under duress. Other instances of this requirement have stated that there must be "serious" or "grievous" bodily harm.