​KembaraXtra-Case Law-Bowen (1996) CA - Study Notes
​I. Case Summary

• Defendant (D): Charged with obtaining services by deception.
• Defense: Duress, claiming two men threatened his family.
• Key Argument for Duress:
  • D was abnormally suggestible.
  • Psychiatrist testified D's IQ was only 68.
• Outcome at Trial: Convicted.
• Appeal Ground: Judge failed to direct the jury to consider D's characteristics in applying the objective test for duress.

II. Held (Per Stuart-Smith LJ)A. Characteristics Not Legitimate for the "Reasonable Person" Test

• (1) "Mere fact" characteristics:
  • More pliable
  • Vulnerable
  • Timid
  • Susceptible to threats
  • These cannot be attributed to the reasonable/ordinary person for the objective test.

B. Categories of Persons Where Pressure Resistance May Differ

• (2) Recognized categories for jury consideration:
  • Age: Obvious example.
  • Sex: Possibly.
  • Pregnancy: Where there is added fear for the unborn child.
  • Recognized mental illness or psychiatric condition: E.g., Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) leading to learned helplessness.

C. Admissibility of Psychiatric/Medical Evidence

• Purpose of evidence: To show D suffered from a mental illness, mental impairment, or other recognized psychiatric condition making them more susceptible to threats.
• Procedure: If D wishes to submit a characteristic listed in (2), they must make it clear to the judge, who will then rule on the admissibility of medical evidence.

D. Application to This Case

• D's abnormal suggestibility was irrelevant.
• D's low IQ (68):
  • Fell short of mental impairment or defectiveness.
  • Not a characteristic that makes people less courageous or able to withstand threats/pressure.
• Conclusion on Jury Direction: The judge had directed the jury sufficiently, allowing them to only consider D's age and sex.