CASE ANALYSIS

R V HUDSON AND TAYLOR (1971)

Facts

Hudson and Taylor were two girls who were charged with perjury
having given false evidence by failing to identify an individual in the
courtroom, during the course of a trial. They had self-confessed that the
evidence they had given was false and used the defence of duress on
the basis that they had been frightened by threat of injury to them if
they had identified the individual. They argued that they had seen an
individual in the courtroom who was known for violent behaviour. The
jury was directed that duress could not provide a defence in the
circumstances and on this basis, they were convicted.

Issue

When giving direction to the jury, the recorder directed that as the
offence of perjury had taken place in the courtroom, there was no threat
of violence in this instance and therefore the defence could not be
implemented. The issue at hand was whether the danger was 'present'
for the purposes of employing duress as a defence.

Held

Hudson and Taylor’s appeals were allowed and their convictions were
quashed. An essential part of the defence of duress was that the threat
should be enough to neutralise the will of the accused at the time the
crime was committed. On this basis, the jury should have been able to
decide to what extent that the impact of the perceived threat had on the
circumstances. It was held that just because the threats, in this case,
could not be implemented at the relevant moment, it did not mean that
the threat was any less 'present’ to neutralise the girls’ will.

Cases referred
COMMENT

In the present case the threats of Farrell were likely to be no less

compelling, because their execution could not be effected in the court
room, if they could be carried out in the streets of Salford the same
night."