R v Hasan
Duress is not available to a defendant who voluntarily associated with criminals in circumstances where he ought reasonably to have foreseen the risk of being subjected to compulsion by threats of violence.
Facts
Mr Hasan worked as a driver and minder for a woman who ran an escort agency, and her boyfriend, Sullivan, was a violent drug dealer who had boasted of committing murders. Mr Hasan said that Sullivan threatened that he and his family would be harmed unless he burgled a house to steal money. He was convicted of aggravated burglary, after the judge directed the jury that duress was not available if he had voluntarily put himself in a position where he knew he was likely to be subjected to threats.
Legal principle
The House of Lords upheld the conviction. Lord Bingham said that the defence of duress is excluded where, as a result of the accused's voluntary association with others engaged in criminal activity, he foresaw or ought reasonably to have foreseen the risk of being subjected to any compulsion by threats of violence. It does not matter whether he foresaw that he would be compelled to commit the kind of offence he did commit. The House also emphasised that the threat must be believed to be one that will be carried out almost immediately or before the defendant can escape, and that there must be no evasive action the defendant could reasonably take.
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 Conway [1989] QB 290
- R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273
- R v Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412
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.
