​KembaraXtra-Case Law-Ali (1995) CA - Duress Defence
​Case Summary:

• Defendant: Ali (D)
• Offence: Robbery of a building society (£1,175).
• Defence Raised: Duress.
• Alleged Threat: D claimed he was threatened by his violent heroin dealer. The dealer allegedly threatened to kill D if D did not commit a robbery to obtain money. D was given a gun by the dealer.

Key Facts Presented by the Defence:

• D was addicted to heroin and used drugs supplied by the dealer.
• D agreed to sell heroin for the dealer and hand over the proceeds.
• D used some of the heroin himself.
• The dealer threatened to shoot D.
• The dealer provided D with a gun and instructed him to commit a robbery to obtain money, or face death.
• D was afraid to report the threats to the police.

The Judge's Direction to the Jury:
The trial judge instructed the jury to consider whether D had voluntarily placed himself in a position where he knew he would be open to being forced to commit crimes under threats from the dealer.
Grounds of Appeal:
D appealed his conviction, arguing that the judge's direction was flawed. He contended that the jury should have been asked whether he knew the dealer would force him to commit armed robbery, rather than just 'a crime'.
The Court of Appeal's Decision (Held):
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and provided crucial clarification on the defence of duress.
Key Principle Established:

• Voluntary Association with Violent Individuals: A defendant cannot rely on the defence of duress if they voluntarily participated in criminal offences with a person whom they knew to be violent and likely to require them to perform other criminal acts, and that person subsequently forces them to commit further crimes.

Elaboration of the Principle:

• Reasonable Anticipation of Violence: If a defendant had no reason to anticipate violence from the individuals they were associated with, they could potentially rely on the defence of duress.
• Knowledge of Propensity to Violence: Conversely, if a defendant was aware of a propensity to violence in those with whom they were working, they cannot subsequently rely on duress when those individuals exert pressure.

Study Points:

1. Understanding the Core of the Duress Defence: Recall that duress requires an imminent threat of death or serious injury, and that the defendant had no reasonable opportunity to escape the threat.
2. The "Voluntary Association" Limitation: R v Ali highlights a critical limitation to the duress defence. It is not a shield if the defendant willingly associates with individuals known to be violent and likely to compel them into criminal activity.
3. Foreseeability of Criminal Acts: The key is whether the defendant knew or should have known that their association with a violent individual could lead to being