In HUDSON & TAYLOR [1971] was two young women, one aged 19 and the other 17. They was about to enter court to give evidence in a criminal trial when a gang came up to them and threatened to ‘cut them up’ if they didn’t give false evidence about the current trial, so the to women lied in court and were found out and convicted with perjury. They could not use duress as a defence as they had a sufficient amount of time to report the threat to the police which they did not.
The defence of duress is no available to a person who voluntary and with knowledge joins a gang or criminal organisation or conspiracy and knowing that others might bring them pressure to commit an offence. This happened in SHARP [1987], SHEPHERD [1988] and ALI [1995].
Bob was held under circumstances were his immediate family was threatened to be killed by a gang of thieves if he didn’t give the criminals the code to the safe; he did this to avoid the circumstance.
Bob could use duress as his defence as he was in an unavoidable situation and problem; he had to give a code to the thieves to stop them killing his family which is a crime but he was under threat.
Necessity is similar to duress as the defendant has to commit a crime to avoid threatening circumstances the only difference is that it is the situation or set of circumstances which causes a threatening harm.
In R v DUDLEY & STEPHENS [1884] they tried to use necessity as a defence. They were two seamen shipwrecked in an open boat, both of them had been without food for over twenty days so they agreed to kill the cabin boy and eat his flesh. However they were rescued four days later and returned to England, when they arrived they was both convicted with murder in which later they was both found guilty of.
In SOUTHWARK LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL v WILLIAMS [1971] Lord Denning said that necessity could not possible is used as a defence ever but when this case R v DUDLEY & STEPHENS [1884] he then reconsidered his decision and said maybe it could be used as a defence in the future.
Pauline stole a bulldozer and bulldozed the house of Mrs Ethel Maywin because their was a fire in the street and to break the chain she had to do this. If the firebreak was not made the whole street would have been up in flames and burned down.
Pauline was therefore charged with criminal damage because of her acts but using necessity as a defence may not be able to be used in this case as it is hard to use necessity as a defence as Lord Denning shown in the cases above it can only be used in certain situations.
Katherine Pettett Centre No. 27218
