- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law -Howe (1987) HL - Duress and Complicity in Murder
This study guide summarizes the key legal principles established in the landmark case of Howe (1987) HL. Understanding this case is crucial for grasping the limitations of the duress defense, particularly in the context of murder, and the principles of complicity.
Case Background
Court's Decision and Key Rulings
The House of Lords found Hand B guilty of murder. The judgment established three critical legal points:
Critical Question for Further Study
Key Takeaways for Your Studies
This study guide summarizes the key legal principles established in the landmark case of Howe (1987) HL. Understanding this case is crucial for grasping the limitations of the duress defense, particularly in the context of murder, and the principles of complicity.
Case Background
- Parties Involved: H, B (defendants), Z, V (victims), M (instigator/controller).
- Events:
- Hand B, along with others, tortured and sexually assaulted Z, who was subsequently strangled to death. They acted as accessories to this killing.
- On a separate occasion, H and B themselves strangled V to death with a shoelace. They acted as principals in this killing.
- Defense Claimed: Both H and B claimed duress as a defense for both killings, arguing that M controlled their actions.
Court's Decision and Key Rulings
The House of Lords found Hand B guilty of murder. The judgment established three critical legal points:
- Irrelevance of Physical Presence for Complicity:
- Principle: An individual's physical presence at the scene of a crime is not a prerequisite for establishing complicity (i.e., being an accessory or accomplice).
- Implication: One can be found guilty of participating in a crime even if they were not physically there when the crime occurred, provided other elements of complicity are met (e.g., aiding, abetting, counseling, procuring).
- Independent Liability in Complicity (per Lord MacKay):
- Principle: If a person is killed, and that death was the intended result by another participant (the accessory/accomplice), the accessory's liability for murder is not automatically reduced just because the actual killer might be convicted of a lesser charge (e.g., manslaughter) due to some personal circumstance or defense.
- Implication: An accessory can be found guilty of murder even if the principal offender is convicted of a lesser offense, as long as the accessory had the necessary intent for murder. Their liability is assessed independently based on their own mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (guilty act of participation).
- Duress is NOT a Defense to Murder:
- Principle: The defense of duress is not available to anyone charged with murder, whether they acted as a principal (the direct killer) or an accessory (one who assisted or encouraged the killing).
- Implication: This is the most significant ruling from Howe. The law holds that taking an innocent life, even under threat, is not justifiable. This principle reflects the sanctity of life in English law.
Critical Question for Further Study
- Liability for Complicity: Participation vs. Actual Effect?
- This question prompts consideration of whether an individual's liability as an accomplice is determined primarily by the nature and extent of their participation in the crime (e.g., their actions, their intent), or by the actual effect of their actions on the outcome of the crime.
- Thinking Point: Howe emphasizes the intent and involvement of the accessory, suggesting that participation with the requisite mens rea is paramount, even if the principal's conviction differs.
Key Takeaways for Your Studies
- Absolute Prohibition: The defense of duress cannot be used for a charge of murder, under any circumstances.
- Complicity Scope: Complicity can be established without physical presence at the crime scene.
- Independent Mens Rea: An accomplice's liability for murder is based on their own intention, not solely on the principal's conviction.
0 Comments