Ratio Decidendi
Duress is not available as a defence to a charge of attempted murder. The reasoning in R v Howe [1987] AC 417 — that the taking of an innocent life cannot be justified by duress because society's interest in the protection of life outweighs the individual's interest in self-preservation — applies equally where the victim does not die. It would be illogical and incoherent to permit duress as a defence to the lesser charge of attempted murder while excluding it from the complete offence of murder. The defence of necessity was also held unavailable on similar grounds.
তথ্য
Kevin Gotts, aged 16, was ordered by his father to kill his mother, the father threatening to kill or seriously injure Kevin if he refused. Kevin attacked his mother with a knife, stabbing her and causing serious injuries, but she survived. Charged with attempted murder, he sought to rely on the defence of duress. The trial judge ruled as a matter of law that duress was not available to a charge of attempted murder; Gotts was convicted and appealed on that point.
রায়ের সারসংক্ষেপ
The House of Lords (Lord Lowry, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, and Lord Browne-Wilkinson in the majority; Lord Keith and Lord Griffiths dissenting) dismissed Gotts's appeal by a 3-2 majority. Kevin Gotts, aged 16, was threatened by his father, who said he would kill or seriously injure Kevin unless Kevin killed his mother. Kevin stabbed his mother, who survived. At trial, Gotts sought to raise duress. The trial judge directed the jury that duress was not available and Gotts was convicted of attempted murder. The House of Lords confirmed that the exclusion of duress from murder (R v Howe [1987]) logically demanded the same exclusion for attempted murder. Lord Jauncey (majority) held that it would be a remarkable paradox to allow a defendant who intended to kill but failed to rely on duress while denying it to the person who succeeded — particularly when the defendant's culpability is identical. The public policy concern — that homicide threatens society at its core and cannot be justified by self-preservation — applied with equal force. Lord Griffiths (dissenting) argued the analogy was imperfect because in attempted murder the victim survives; the law should not encourage the defendant to ensure death to secure the same legal outcome. The majority declined to follow that reasoning. The case has been criticised by the Law Commission, which has recommended making duress a partial defence to murder.
মূল উদ্ধৃতি
"If a person may not rely on duress as a defence to murder, it would be strange if he could rely on it when he failed to complete the killing. The relevant test is the intent to kill, and that intent is equally present in attempted murder."
— Lord Jauncey at 433
"The reason duress is not available for murder is because the law regards the protection of innocent life as paramount. That reason applies equally where the intent to kill is present but the act fails."
— Lord Browne-Wilkinson at 445
"It would be illogical and inconsistent to allow the defence to attempted murder when it is denied to murder, given that the only difference between the two offences is the fortuity of whether the victim died."
— Lord Lowry at 424
পরবর্তী ব্যবহার
Followed as the definitive extension of R v Howe [1987] AC 417 to attempted murder. Applied in subsequent cases where duress was raised in relation to intent-based serious offences.
Considered by the Law Commission in its report 'Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide' (Law Com No 304, 2006), which recommended duress should be a partial defence to murder and attempted murder, reducing liability to second-degree murder.
Distinguished from duress cases involving lesser offences: duress remains available as a complete defence to all crimes other than murder and attempted murder, subject to the general requirements of reasonable response to imminent threat.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Common Scenarios
Get Professional Help