R v Conway
Duress of circumstances is available where the defendant reasonably believes there is a threat of death or serious injury, and is subject to the same limits as duress by threats.
Facts
Mr Conway was driving a car with a passenger who had recently been the target of a shooting. Two plain clothes police officers ran towards the car. The passenger, believing that they were the people who had attacked him before, shouted to Mr Conway to drive off, and Mr Conway drove away at speed, in a manner that was reckless. He was convicted of reckless driving, after the judge refused to leave the defence of necessity to the jury.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. Woolf LJ said that necessity can only be a defence to a charge of reckless driving where the facts establish duress within the meaning of R v Graham, that is, duress of circumstances. The defence was available where the defendant was driving to avoid a threat of death or serious injury to himself or another, and there was evidence that Mr Conway reasonably believed that his passenger was in danger. The jury should have been allowed to consider it.
Related cases on defences: self defence, duress and necessity
- Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 147
- Beckford v The Queen [1988] AC 130
- R (Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin), [2016] QB 862
- R v Bowen [1997] 1 WLR 372
- R v Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482
- R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273
- R v Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412
- R v Graham [1982] 1 WLR 294
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
