​KembaraXtra-Case Law-Howe and Bannister (1987) - Duress and Murder
​Case: DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch (1972) AC 653 (This case, though not explicitly detailed in the provided text, is the foundational case that Howe and Bannister addresses and modifies regarding duress and murder. Understanding Lynch is crucial for grasping the impact of Howe and Bannister.)
Focus: The availability of the defence of duress in relation to charges of murder.

I. Legal Principle Established in Howe and Bannister (1987):

• Rejection of Duress as a Defence to Murder: The House of Lords definitively held that the defence of duress is not available to a charge of murder.
• Rationale for Exclusion:
  • Sacrifice of Innocent Life: A defendant who takes the life of an innocent person under threat (duress) is considered to have made a deliberate choice to kill, even if coerced.
  • Moral Stance: Lord Hailsham famously described such a defendant as a "coward and a poltroon," highlighting the severe moral condemnation attached to taking an innocent life under duress.
  • Absence of Distinction Between Principal and Accessory: The law does not draw a firm distinction between a principal offender and an accessory in a murder charge. This means that if duress is not available to the principal killer, it is also not available to someone who aided or abetted the killing under duress.
  • No Basis for Distinction: Consequently, there is no legal basis to permit duress as a defence to any degree of murder.

II. Key Takeaways for Study:

• Absolute Bar: Understand that Howe and Bannister creates an absolute bar to the defence of duress in murder cases. This is a critical distinction from other offences where duress might be available.
• "Coward and a Poltroon": While a strong quote, focus on the underlying legal reasoning it represents: the profound societal and legal disapproval of sacrificing an innocent life, even under threat.
• No Degrees of Murder: Be aware that this applies to any charge of murder, regardless of the perceived "degree" or intent.
• Contrast with Other Offences: Consider how Howe and Bannister differs from cases where duress is a valid defence (e.g., theft, assault). This comparative understanding will reinforce the specific rule for murder.

III. Points to Memorise:

• Case Name: Howe and Bannister (1987)
• Core Ruling: Duress is not a defence to murder.
• Key Quote/Reasoning: "Coward and a poltroon" (per Lord Hailsham) due to the sacrifice of an innocent life.
• Reason for No Distinction: No firm basis for distinguishing principals and accessories in murder for the purpose of the duress defence.