​KembaraXtra-Case Law- Hegarty (1994) CA - Duress and Defendant Characteristics
Case Summary
​Defendant (D): Charged with robbery.
Defence: Duress.
D's Claim: Attacked by men who threatened violence against his family if he did not commit the robberies.
Key Issue at Trial: D sought to introduce evidence of his mental instability.
D's Background: History of mental illness, described as 'emotionally unstable' and in a 'grossly elevated neurotic state'.
Court of Appeal (CA) RulingKey Holding: D's emotionally unstable or grossly elevated neurotic state was not a relevant characteristic to consider in the test for duress.
Rationale:

1. Test for Duress: The test of whether D's will was overborne is not purely subjective.
2. Objective Element: The jury must also consider the response of a "sober person of reasonable firmness 'sharing the characteristics of the defendant'."
3. Relevant Characteristics: The court can take into account:
   • Age
   • Sex
   • Physical health
4. Irrelevant Characteristics: The court cannot take into account a personality disorder or mental instability such as that experienced by D in this case.

Implications for Duress Defence

• Mixed Subjective/Objective Test: The defence of duress involves both a subjective element (was D's will overborne?) and an objective element (would a reasonable person, sharing some of D's characteristics, have succumbed?).
• Limited Scope of "Characteristics": While some personal characteristics are relevant, mental instability or personality disorders are generally excluded when assessing the objective standard of reasonable firmness. This prevents the bar for duress from being lowered for individuals with certain psychological vulnerabilities.
• Focus on Reasonableness: The law seeks to balance the understanding of the defendant's immediate fear with the need to maintain a standard of reasonable fortitude in the face of threats.