​KembaraXtra-Case Law-Willer (1986) CA - Defence of Necessity/Duress of Circumstances
​Case: R v Willer (1986) CA
Key Issue: Availability of the defence of necessity (or duress of circumstances) where a defendant commits a criminal act to escape imminent harm.

Facts of the Case:

• The defendant (D) was convicted of reckless driving.
• D drove his vehicle on the pavement at a slow speed.
• This action was taken to escape from a gang of youths who intended to inflict violence upon him.
• D attempted to rely on the defence of necessity.
• The trial judge ruled that the defence of necessity was not available to D.
• Consequently, D changed his plea to guilty.

Legal Principles & Reasoning:

• The Court of Appeal's Decision: The Court of Appeal held that the defence of duress of circumstances was applicable in this scenario.
• Availability of the Defence: The court stated that this defence should have been left to the jury to consider, regardless of whether the specific elements of necessity had been definitively established or whether the defence was considered generally available in all circumstances.
• Temporal Element: The critical factor highlighted was that the threat of violence from the gang was existing and imminent. The defence of duress of circumstances operates while such a threat is present.

Key Takeaways for Study:

• Distinction between Necessity and Duress of Circumstances: While D argued necessity, the court found duress of circumstances to be the more appropriate defence. Understand the nuances between these two defences, although they often overlap.
• Elements of Duress of Circumstances (Implied from the case):
  • Imminent Threat: There must be an immediate and serious threat of death or serious injury.
  • Reasonable Response: The defendant's actions must be a reasonable and proportionate response to the threat. (While not explicitly detailed as a failure in this brief note, this is a general requirement for the defence).
  • No Opportunity for Lawful Escape: The defendant must have had no reasonable opportunity to escape the threat by lawful means.
• Trial Judge Error: The trial judge's failure to allow the jury to consider the defence was deemed an error. This underscores the importance of presenting relevant