Self-Defense And Duress In Criminal Law
🔍 Overview: Self-Defense and Duress in Criminal Law
Both self-defense and duress are general defences in criminal law that can justify or excuse criminal conduct. However, they operate under different principles:
Self-defense (or defense of others/property) is a justification—it argues the act was lawful.
Duress is an excuse—it argues the act was unlawful, but the defendant was forced into it.
Let’s now explore each, along with key case law.
🛡️ SELF-DEFENSE
✅ Key Legal Principles:
The force used must be reasonable.
There must be an honest belief of imminent danger (even if mistaken).
The response must be proportionate to the threat.
Case 1: R v. Gladstone Williams [1984] 78 Cr App R 276
Facts:
The defendant saw a man attacking another and, unaware the "attacker" was stopping a thief, intervened and assaulted the wrong person.
Held:
The defendant’s honest belief in the need for force, even if mistaken, was enough to allow self-defense.
The reasonableness of the belief was relevant to credibility but not necessary for the defence to apply.
Importance:
Established that a mistaken but honest belief in the need for force can support a self-defense claim.
Case 2: R v. Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482
Facts:
A British soldier shot at a car suspected of being used by terrorists. He continued firing after the threat had passed.
Held:
The initial force might have been justified, but once the threat ended, further force was unlawful.
His conviction for murder was upheld.
Importance:
Clarified that excessive force negates the defence of self-defense.
Case 3: R v. Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816
Facts:
During a heated argument, the defendant hit someone with a glass. She claimed she had no time to retreat or think.
Held:
There is no duty to retreat in self-defense.
Instantaneous reactions can still qualify if the force used was reasonable.
Importance:
Reaffirmed that pre-emptive or reflexive actions in self-defense may be lawful.
Case 4: R (Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWCA Civ 117
Facts:
Concerned a householder using force against an intruder. The law allows "disproportionate" force in home invasions under certain circumstances.
Held:
The law does not permit grossly disproportionate force, but allows leeway when someone is defending their home.
The court supported a subjective assessment of perceived danger.
Importance:
Clarified self-defense in householder cases under the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
⛓️ DURESS
✅ Key Legal Principles:
The threat must be of death or serious injury.
The threat must be immediate or imminent.
The defendant must not have a realistic opportunity to escape.
Duress is not a defence to murder or attempted murder.
Case 5: R v. Hasan [2005] UKHL 22
Facts:
Defendant claimed he was forced by gang members to commit burglary.
Held:
Duress is not available where the defendant voluntarily associates with violent individuals and foresaw the risk of coercion.
The court rejected his defence.
Importance:
Set a precedent that voluntary exposure to threats can eliminate duress as a defence.
Case 6: R v. Graham [1982] 1 All ER 801
Facts:
Defendant claimed he helped kill his wife under pressure from a violent partner.
Held:
Introduced a two-part test for duress:
Was the defendant compelled to act due to a threat of serious harm?
Would a sober person of reasonable firmness have acted the same?
Importance:
Established the objective and subjective test for duress.
Case 7: R v. Howe [1987] AC 417
Facts:
Defendants claimed they participated in murder under duress.
Held:
Duress is not a defence to murder, regardless of the accused’s role.
Even secondary participants cannot use duress to justify killing.
Importance:
A leading authority rejecting duress as a defence for murder.
Case 8: R v. Valderrama-Vega [1985] Crim LR 220
Facts:
Claimed he smuggled drugs because he was threatened with death and exposure of his sexuality.
Held:
A threat of death or serious injury must be a substantial reason for the act, but other factors may be considered.
Duress was allowed to be considered by the jury.
Importance:
Recognised multiple motivators can exist, but the threat of death must be central.
Case 9: R v. Cole [1994] Crim LR 582
Facts:
Defendant claimed he committed robbery because of threats to repay debt.
Held:
There must be a nexus between the threat and the crime.
The threats must be to commit a specific offence, not general pressure.
Importance:
Clarified that duress cannot justify random criminal conduct—it must be directly connected.
🔍 Comparative Table
| Case | Defence | Key Point |
|---|---|---|
| R v. Gladstone Williams | Self-defense | Honest belief in threat is sufficient |
| R v. Clegg | Self-defense | Excessive force invalidates the defence |
| R v. Bird | Self-defense | No duty to retreat |
| R v. Collins | Self-defense | Householder may use disproportionate force |
| R v. Hasan | Duress | No defence if voluntarily exposed to threats |
| R v. Graham | Duress | Two-part test (subjective + objective) |
| R v. Howe | Duress | Not available for murder |
| R v. Valderrama-Vega | Duress | Threat must be a substantial reason |
| R v. Cole | Duress | Specific link between threat and offence required |
⚖️ Conclusion
Self-defense is a robust defence when the defendant uses reasonable and proportionate force against a perceived threat, including mistaken threats.
Duress is more restricted. It only applies under serious, imminent threats and never to murder. It also requires a clear link between the threat and the crime.
These landmark cases have shaped how courts interpret and apply these defences in criminal law, balancing individual protection against public interest and justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments