R v Willer
Duress of circumstances: a driver who drove on the pavement to escape a gang threatening violence could rely on a defence of necessity.
Facts
Mr Willer was driving a car with two passengers when they were surrounded by a gang of youths, who threatened to kill one of the passengers and tried to drag him out of the car. To escape, Mr Willer drove onto the pavement and through a shopping precinct. He was charged with reckless driving, and the judge refused to allow him to rely on the defence of necessity. He then pleaded guilty.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. The court said that the defence should have been left to the jury, on the basis that Mr Willer was wholly driven by force of circumstance into doing what he did and did not drive the car otherwise than under that form of compulsion, that is, under duress. This was the first case to recognise what became known as duress of circumstances, where the threat comes from the circumstances rather than from a person demanding that the defendant commit a crime.
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.
