Introduction
This essay examines the criminal law concept of duress in the context of Robert, a quiet individual coerced by Kim into obtaining a DVD player from a shop using a stolen credit card under the threat of physical harm. The purpose of this analysis is to assess whether Robert’s actions can be excused or mitigated under the defence of duress within the framework of UK criminal law. The discussion will focus on the legal criteria for duress, the application of these principles to Robert’s situation, and the broader implications of such a defence. By exploring relevant case law and statutory provisions, this essay aims to demonstrate a sound understanding of the field while critically evaluating the limits of this defence.
Understanding Duress as a Defence
Duress in criminal law refers to a situation where an individual commits an offence under the threat of serious harm, either to themselves or others, thereby negating their free will. In the UK, duress is recognised as a complete defence to most crimes, except murder, attempted murder, and certain treason offences (R v Howe, 1987). For the defence to apply, two key elements must be established: first, there must be a threat of death or serious bodily harm; second, the threat must be such that a person of reasonable firmness would have succumbed to it (R v Graham, 1982). Additionally, the threat must be immediate or imminent, and the defendant must have no reasonable opportunity to escape or seek help.
In Robert’s case, Kim’s threat to “beat him up” raises questions about whether this constitutes a sufficient threat of serious bodily harm. While the phrase suggests physical violence, the severity remains ambiguous. Case law suggests that the threat must be perceived as genuinely serious by the defendant (R v Hasan, 2005). Robert, described as “very quiet,” might subjectively perceive the threat as overwhelming, but the objective test—whether a reasonable person would have acted similarly—remains critical. This introduces a limitation in applying the defence if the threat is deemed insufficiently grave.
Application to Robert’s Circumstances
Applying the legal principles to Robert’s situation, it appears plausible that he acted under duress when obtaining the DVD player with a stolen credit card, an act likely constituting fraud by false representation under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. However, several factors complicate his claim. Firstly, while Kim’s threat is explicit, it lacks clarity on immediacy. If Robert had an opportunity to seek help—perhaps by alerting shop staff or authorities—the defence might fail, as established in R v Hasan (2005), where the court emphasised that defendants must take reasonable steps to avoid coercion.
Furthermore, the objective test poses a challenge. Would a person of reasonable firmness, faced with a threat of being “beaten up,” commit fraud? This is debatable, as the proportionality of the response to the threat is scrutinised by courts (Ashworth, 2013). Arguably, Robert’s quiet nature might suggest greater vulnerability, yet the law prioritises an objective standard over personal characteristics. Thus, while Robert’s fear may be genuine, the defence of duress might not fully exonerate him.
Broader Implications and Limitations
The case highlights broader issues in the application of duress as a defence. Indeed, the strict criteria ensure that the defence is not abused, yet they risk excluding vulnerable individuals who genuinely feel compelled to act. Ashworth (2013) notes that the law’s emphasis on immediacy and reasonableness can overlook psychological coercion or long-term fear, which might be relevant to someone like Robert. Additionally, the defence does not account for the moral dilemma of refusing to comply at personal cost. This raises questions about whether the law adequately balances individual circumstances with societal expectations of lawful behaviour.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Robert’s actions in obtaining a DVD player using a stolen credit card under Kim’s threat to beat him up present a complex case for the defence of duress. While the threat of physical harm might satisfy the subjective fear required, the objective test and issues of immediacy could limit its applicability. This analysis underscores the defence’s strict criteria, ensuring accountability but potentially marginalising vulnerable defendants. Further exploration of psychological factors in coercion could enhance the law’s responsiveness to diverse human experiences. Ultimately, Robert’s liability hinges on judicial interpretation of “serious harm” and reasonable response, illustrating the nuanced balance between individual compulsion and legal responsibility.
References
- Ashworth, A. (2013) Principles of Criminal Law. 7th ed. Oxford University Press.
- R v Graham [1982] 1 WLR 294.
- R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22.
- R v Howe [1987] AC 417.
