​KembaraXtra-Case Law-Flatt (1996) CA - Duress and Drug Addiction
​I. Case Information

• Case Name: Flatt (1996) CA
• Court: Court of Appeal (CA)
• Key Area of Law: Duress Defence

II. Case Summary

• Defendant (D) Charged with: Possession of drugs with intent.
• D's Defence: Duress.
• Basis of Duress Claim:
  • Addicted to crack cocaine.
  • Owed dealer £1,500.
  • Dealer threatened to shoot D's grandmother and girlfriend if D didn't look after drugs.
• Initial Outcome: D convicted.
• Grounds for Appeal: Judge should have directed the jury to consider D's drug addiction in applying the objective test for duress.

III. Court's Decision and Reasoning

• Appeal Outcome: Dismissed.
• Key Holdings:
  1. Drug addiction is a self-induced condition.
  2. Drug addiction is NOT a characteristic to be considered in the objective test for duress.
  3. Lack of Evidence: No evidence that drug addiction made D less able to withstand threats or pressure.

IV. Legal Principles & Implications

• Objective Test for Duress: The court reaffirms that the test for duress involves an objective element (whether a reasonable person of the defendant's sex and age, and with any relevant characteristics, would have acted as the defendant did).
• Self-Induced Conditions: The ruling highlights that self-induced conditions generally do not qualify as "characteristics" for the purpose of the objective test in duress.
• Burden of Proof: Implicitly, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating how a characteristic (if accepted) would have affected their ability to resist threats.
• Limitation on Duress Defence: This case limits the scope of the duress defence, particularly when self-induced conditions are cited as a mitigating factor.