ABSTRACT
Being compelled to commit a crime as a result of threats from another, or, in certain situations, by force of circumstances (‘necessity’), is generally a complete defence under English law.51 This is not the case, however, in relation to murder. In Howe,52 the D had taken part in a serious assault on the V, which resulted in the V’s death. The D’s defence was that he took part in the attack only because he believed he would receive the same treatment as the V if he refused. In other words, he claimed that he acted under duress. The House of Lords, however, rejected this as a defence to murder. Lord Mackay noted that English law had, in the famous case of Dudley and Stephens,53 rejected a plea of necessity as a justification of murder. That case had involved shipwrecked sailors killing and eating a cabin boy to ensure their own survival. The court had refused to accept this as a valid defence to murder. Lord Mackay considered that the same approach should be taken to the plea of duress in the present case. The reason for such an approach was primarily the status accorded to the need to protect human life:54
The defence of duress, it was therefore confirmed, is not available to a charge of murder. The House of Lords in Howe stated that this rule also applies to those charged as accessories to murder, thus reversing the approach taken by the House of Lords in the earlier case of Lynch v DPP for Northern Ireland.55 A suggestion that duress might have the effect of reducing a charge of murder to manslaughter was also rejected, as being inconsistent with the general principle that duress, where available, entitles the D to a full acquittal.56
