- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Graham (1982) - Duress and the Sober Person Test
Case Citation: R v Graham [1982] 1 WLR 294
Keywords: Duress, Subjective Test, Objective Test, Sober Person of Reasonable Firmness, Voluntary Intoxication
I. Factual Summary
II. Legal Issue: Duress
The central legal question was whether D could successfully argue the defense of duress, meaning he was forced to commit the crime by a threat of death or serious injury.
III. Court's Decision and the "Graham Test"
The Court of Appeal established a two-part test for duress, which juries must consider:
IV. Key Principle Regarding Voluntary Intoxication
V. Application to the Graham Case
In the specific case of D, the jury would have had to consider:
VI. Significance of R v Graham
Case Citation: R v Graham [1982] 1 WLR 294
Keywords: Duress, Subjective Test, Objective Test, Sober Person of Reasonable Firmness, Voluntary Intoxication
I. Factual Summary
- Individuals Involved:
- D (Defendant): Practicing homosexual, living in a ménage à trois with K and D's wife. Suffering from anxiety, taking medication making him vulnerable to bullying.
- K: Violent man, jealous of D's wife.
- D's Wife: Victim.
- Incident: One night, after D had been drinking heavily, K placed an electric cord around the wife's neck. K then ordered D to pull the other end, which D did, resulting in the wife's death.
- Defendant's Claim: D asserted he complied due to fear of K, exacerbated by the anxiety medication he was taking.
II. Legal Issue: Duress
The central legal question was whether D could successfully argue the defense of duress, meaning he was forced to commit the crime by a threat of death or serious injury.
III. Court's Decision and the "Graham Test"
The Court of Appeal established a two-part test for duress, which juries must consider:
- Subjective Question:
- Question: Was the defendant impelled to act as they did because they genuinely and reasonably believed that, if they did not comply with the threat, the person issuing the threat would kill them or cause them serious injury?
- Focus: This part assesses the defendant's honest and reasonable perception of the threat.
- Objective Question:
- Question: Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the defendant's relevant characteristics, have responded to the reasonably believed threat by taking part in the killing?
- Focus: This part introduces an objective standard. It asks whether a hypothetical reasonable person, with similar traits to the defendant, would have succumbed to the pressure.
IV. Key Principle Regarding Voluntary Intoxication
- Rule: The fact that the defendant's ability to resist a threat was weakened or eroded by the voluntary consumption of drink or drugs is NOT relevant to the duress test.
- Implication: Voluntary intoxication cannot be used to justify a lowered standard of resistance when assessing duress. The "sober person" standard remains.
V. Application to the Graham Case
In the specific case of D, the jury would have had to consider:
- Did D genuinely and reasonably believe that K would kill him or cause him serious injury if he did not pull the cord?
- Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing D's characteristics (e.g., anxiety, potential vulnerability), have also complied with K's demand to kill the wife? The fact that D had been drinking heavily would be disregarded for this objective assessment.
VI. Significance of R v Graham
- Definitive Test for Duress: This case established the definitive two-part test for duress that remains influential in English law.
- Balance of Subjectivity and Objectivity: It balances the defendant's individual perception of the threat with an objective standard of resistance.
- Impact of Intoxication: It clearly excludes voluntary intoxication as a factor in lowering the expected standard of resilience against threats.
0 Comments