​KembaraXtra-Case Law-DPP v Martin (1989)
​1. Case Citation: DPP v Martin (1989)
2. Offence Charged: Driving whilst disqualified.
3. Factual Background:

• Defendant (D): Charged with driving whilst disqualified.
• Wife's Condition: D's wife suffered from suicidal tendencies and had a history of suicide attempts.
• Son's Situation: D's son had overslept and was at risk of being late for work.
• D's Action: To prevent the son from losing his job, D drove his son to work. This was despite being disqualified from driving.
• Motive for Action: D's wife was significantly distressed and threatening suicide, which was the primary reason D acted.

4. Legal Issue: Whether the defence of duress of circumstances was available to the defendant.
5. The Defence of Duress of Circumstances:

• Definition: This defence arises when a person commits an offence under circumstances that have compelled them to act in a way they would not ordinarily do, due to an immediate threat of death or serious injury.

6. Court's Holding (Decision):

• The court allowed the defence of duress of circumstances.

7. Reasoning for the Holding:

• Threat of Death or Serious Injury: The court found that there was a threat of death or serious injury directed against D's wife. The wife's suicidal tendencies and threats constituted the "circumstances" under which D acted.
• Reasonable and Proportionate Response: For the defence to succeed, D must have acted reasonably and proportionately in order to avoid the threat. This implies that the action taken by D must have been a necessary and appropriate response to the imminent danger.

8. Key Takeaway Points for Study:

• Duress of Circumstances: Understand the core elements of this defence, particularly the presence of an imminent threat of death or serious injury.
• Nexus between Threat and Action: Emphasise that the defence requires a direct link between the threat (in this case, the wife's suicidal state) and the commission of the offence (driving whilst disqualified).
• Reasonableness and Proportionality: This is a crucial limitation on the defence. D's actions must be objectively assessed as a reasonable and proportionate response to the perceived threat. Driving to the workplace, in this instance, was deemed a reasonable measure to de-escalate the wife's distress and prevent a potential suicide, thereby avoiding the greater harm.
• Distinction from Duress by Threat: While related, duress of circumstances focuses on external pressures or situations, rather than a direct threat from another person.

​KembaraXtra-Case Law- Conway (1988) CA
​I. Case Overview

• Parties:
  • D: Defendant (driver of the car)
  • T: Passenger wanted by police
  • Police Officers: Two approaching the car
• Facts:
  • D was parked with two passengers.
  • One passenger, T, was wanted by the police.
  • Two police officers approached the car to speak to T.
  • T instructed D to drive away.
  • D drove away at great speed and in a reckless manner.
  • D was charged with reckless driving.

II. Defence Raised

• Defence: Duress of Circumstances
• Basis of Defence:
  • D claimed T had narrowly avoided being shot by two men a few weeks prior.
  • When plain-clothed officers approached the car, D thought they were going to shoot T.
  • D stated he only realized they were police officers after dropping T off at a safe location.

III. Court's Holding (Legal Principle)

• Held: Necessity will only be a defence to the charge of reckless driving where D was under duress of circumstances.
• Definition of Duress of Circumstances:
  • D was constrained by circumstances.
  • The constraint was to avoid death or serious injury.
  • The threat of death or serious injury was to himself or another person.

Key Takeaway: The defense of duress of circumstances requires a direct and immediate threat of death or serious injury that compels the defendant's actions. The belief that such a threat exists, even if mistaken, may be relevant, but the circumstances themselves must necessitate the unlawful act.