R v Hasan

判决理由

事实

Hasan worked as a driver and minder for a woman who ran an escort business. Her associate, a violent man said to have committed murders, allegedly threatened Hasan and his family unless Hasan carried out a burglary at the house of one of the woman's wealthy clients to steal cash from a safe. Hasan carried out the burglary and, when charged, raised the defence of duress.

判决摘要

The House of Lords restored Hasan's conviction, holding that the defence of duress was not available to him. Lord Bingham, giving the leading speech, emphasised that duress is a concession to human frailty that must be kept within strict limits because it is easy to assert and hard for the prosecution to disprove. He clarified several requirements, most importantly that duress is excluded where the defendant voluntarily associated with others engaged in criminal activity and either foresaw, or ought reasonably to have foreseen, the risk of being subjected to compulsion by threats of violence. It is not necessary that the defendant foresaw the specific offence he was later coerced into committing; foreseeability of coercion by violence is enough. Because Hasan had voluntarily associated with a man he knew to be violent and criminal, he could not rely on duress. The House also confirmed that the threat relied on must be of death or serious injury and directed against the defendant or someone for whom he is responsible. Hasan is the leading modern statement of the limits of the duress defence.

关键引述

后续处理