KembaraXtra-Case Law- Davis (1994) - Driving with Excess Alcohol & Duress Defence
Case Overview

• Case Name: Davis (1994)
• Charge: Driving with excess alcohol.
• Defendant's Situation:
  • Suffering from stress and anxiety.
  • Accepted an invitation for a meal with a male acquaintance.
  • Subjected to an unwelcome homosexual advance by the acquaintance.
  • Ran out of the flat and drove away.

Legal Issue

• Application of the defence of duress in the context of driving with excess alcohol.
• Specifically, the subjective vs. objective elements of the duress test.

Lower Court Decision

• Magistrates applied a subjective test to determine if the events caused the defendant to lose control of his will.
• Defendant was acquitted.
• Prosecution appealed.

Court of Appeal Decision (Held)

• Duress Defence: While subjective, it has objective elements, as per the test laid down in Graham (see 12.1.2).
• Magistrates' Error:
  • Overlooked the objective question: whether a reasonable sober person would have responded to the threats in the same way.
• Analysis of Fear:
  • Defendant was only in fear in the flat.
  • He was not in fear for his life or of serious injury.
  • Magistrates did not find he was still in fear whilst driving two miles down the road.
• Conclusion on Duress:
  • Had an objective test been applied, it would have been impossible to conclude that the threat was still operative when the defendant was driving the car.

Key Takeaways

• The defence of duress is not purely subjective.
• A reasonable person test (objective element) is crucial.
• The threat must be operative and ongoing at the time of the offence.
• Mere fear experienced in a specific location does not automatically extend to subsequent actions taken away from that location.