​KembaraXtra-Case Law-Pittaway (1994) OBD
​This case concerns the defense of duress in a driving with excess alcohol charge.
Case Summary

• Defendant (D): Recently divorced from an abusive husband.
• New Relationship: With P.
• Incident: After an argument at a party, P issued threats towards D.
• D's Action: Fled to her car (200 yards away), hid for 5 minutes, then drove off (200 yards) before being stopped. P was not nearby.
• Charge: Driving with excess alcohol.
• D's Defense: Fear of immediate violence due to past abuse and P's threats.
• Initial Outcome: Acquitted.
• Prosecution Appeal: Successful.

Legal Principle: DuressThe defense of duress requires more than just the defendant's subjective fear. The court must apply an objective test.
Key Issues and Court's Reasoning (Appeal)

1. Failure to Apply Objective Test:
   • The magistrates focused solely on the effect of P's threats on D, considering her history of abuse.
   • They failed to consider whether there was good cause for her to fear immediate violence.
2. Operative Nature of the Threat:
   • The magistrates did not assess whether P's threat remained operative after five minutes of D sitting in her car, unpursued.
   • This implies a need to consider the time lapse and the cessation of immediate danger.

Outcome of Appeal

• A conviction was ordered.
• The magistrates' acquittal was overturned due to their failure to apply the objective test for duress.

Key Takeaways for Duress Defense:

• Objective Standard: The threat must be one that would cause a reasonable person to fear immediate violence.
• Good Cause: There must be evidence to support the fear of immediate violence.
• Operative Threat: The threat must be ongoing and immediate at the time of the act. A significant time lapse can weaken the defense.