​KembaraXtra-Cole (1994) CA: Duress Defence
This case examines the defence of duress in the context of a robbery charge and clarifies the distinctions between duress by threats and duress of circumstances.
Facts:

• The defendant (D) was charged with robbery.
• D claimed the defence of duress, alleging that his inability to repay money lenders led to threats, physical assault (baseball bat), and threats against his girlfriend and child.
• The trial judge ruled that duress was only applicable if the threats were specifically directed at the commission of the offence charged. The threats in this case related to a debt, not the consequences of not committing the robbery.
• D changed his plea to guilty and appealed against conviction.

Key Legal Principles and Holdings:
The court distinguished between two types of duress defences:

1. Duress by Threats:
   • Definition: This defence applies when a person issuing the threat nominates the crime that the defendant is to commit.
   • Application in Cole**:** D could not rely on this defence because the money lenders had not compelled him to commit the robbery as a means to meet their demands. Their threats were related to the debt itself, not specifically forcing him to commit the robbery.
2. Duress of Circumstances:
   • Requirement: To establish this defence, there must be a nexus (connection) between the imminent peril and the criminal course of action.
   • Application in Cole**:**
     • Lack of Imminent Peril: The court found that the peril faced by D was not sufficiently imminent.
     • Insufficient Proximity: The connection between the act of robbery and the consequences of not paying the money lenders was not sufficiently proximate. Therefore, the threats were deemed not "operative" in compelling D to commit the robbery.

Study Points:

• Understand the distinction: Clearly differentiate between duress by threats (where the threatener dictates the crime) and duress of circumstances (where circumstances compel the criminal act).
• Focus on the "nexus": For duress of circumstances, the crucial element is a direct and proximate link between the perceived danger and the illegal act.
• "Imminent peril" is key: The danger must be immediate and unavoidable. Threats related to past or general consequences of inaction may not suffice.
• "Operative threat": The threat must be the compelling reason for committing the offence.
• Analyze fact patterns: Consider how the specific threats and circumstances in a given case align with the legal requirements of each type of duress defence.