- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Horne (1994) CA - Duress and the Objective Test
Key Learning Objectives:
Case Background:
Court Ruling (Held):
Key Takeaways for Studying Duress:
Self-Test Question:
Why did the court in R v Horne refuse to consider psychiatric evidence relating to the defendant's vulnerability when assessing his duress defense?
Answer Hint: Relate your answer directly to the concept of the "objective test" and the standard set by "a person of reasonable firmness."
Key Learning Objectives:
- Understand the core principle of the objective test in the defense of duress.
- Identify what characteristics are irrelevant when assessing duress.
- Grasp why considering individual characteristics can undermine the objective test.
Case Background:
- Defendant (D): Employee of the Department of Social Security (DSS).
- Crime: Conspired with others to make fraudulent claims for Income Support.
- Defense Pleaded: Duress.
- Nature of Pressure:
- Co-conspirator exerted pressure through telephone calls and visits to D's home.
- No direct threat of violence was made.
- However, the co-conspirator "hinted" that his brother "might sort him [D] out."
- Defendant's Attempt: D sought to introduce psychiatric evidence at trial regarding the effect of the duress on him.
Court Ruling (Held):
- Key Principle: The court affirmed the objective nature of the test for duress.
- Per Russell LJ:
- The standard for comparison is a "person of reasonable firmness."
- Therefore, it is irrelevant for the jury to consider any characteristic of the defendant that suggests they are not a person of reasonable firmness.
- This includes characteristics indicating pliability or vulnerability to pressure.
- Rationale: To consider a defendant's individual characteristics (such as those suggested by psychiatric evidence) would fundamentally undermine the objective nature of the test for duress.
Key Takeaways for Studying Duress:
- Objective Standard is Paramount: The defense of duress is not assessed subjectively based on the individual defendant's unique vulnerabilities. Instead, it relies on an objective standard: would a person of reasonable firmness, sharing the defendant's characteristics, have responded in the same way?
- Irrelevant Characteristics: Characteristics that make an individual more "pliant" or "vulnerable to pressure" (e.g., certain psychological traits) are generally excluded from consideration when applying the objective test.
- Preventing Undermining: The court's decision in Horne highlights the legal system's commitment to maintaining an objective standard for duress. Allowing individual vulnerabilities to significantly influence the assessment would risk making the defense too broad and difficult to apply consistently.
- Distinguish from Threats: While the pressure in Horne was indirect, the core issue was how the defendant's response to that pressure should be judged, not whether a valid threat existed. The focus here is on the defendant's capacity to resist, judged objectively.
Self-Test Question:
Why did the court in R v Horne refuse to consider psychiatric evidence relating to the defendant's vulnerability when assessing his duress defense?
Answer Hint: Relate your answer directly to the concept of the "objective test" and the standard set by "a person of reasonable firmness."
0 Comments