DURESS
There was also no threat or
When a person is forced to commit a crime by
threatening him and left him with no choice,
his actions are morally involuntary.
S. 94 of PC
Except for murder and offences against the
state punishable with death, nothing is an
offence which is done by a person who is
compelled to do it by threats, which at the
time of doing it, reasonably causes the
apprehension that instant death to that
person will otherwise be the consequence.
Elements :
1) The threat must cause apprehension of
death
2) The threat to cause instant death
3) The threat must be against the accused
4) The threat must continue to exist at the
time of doing the act
The defence would not be available for :
- A person who places himself in situations
where they become subject of the threat
PP v Lynch
If a person choose to be in IRA which is
known to him that would use violence, he
cannot claim that he was under duress if he
being compelled to commit crime
- Offence under S. 302 Penal Code
- Offence punishable with death in Chapter IV
Penal Code
1) The threat must cause apprehension of
death
- The threat must be threat of death and not
extreme torture or serious injury short of
death is insufficient
Tan Seng Ann v PP
The appellant was charged and convicted for
being in possession of a fire-arm. He appealed
against his conviction, stating that the 2 men
came to his house and brought a small parcel
containing a fire-arm. They told the appellant
to keep it in the house for a night and that
they would take it away in the morning.
Held : The court found that the appellant
intended to return the fire-arm to the 2 men
and did not intend to hand oover the fire-arm
1
to the police.
coercion being used on the appellant by the 2
men.
Thus, the appellant is not entitled to the
defence of duress.
2) The threat is of instant death
- The threat of future violence is insufficient
as the threat must be imminent, extreme and
persistent
Mohamed Yusof bin Haji Ahmad v PP
The appellant was convicted of trafficking
dangerous drugs. He claimed that he has
been forced to do so by a Thai man who had
threatened him with a pistol and told him to
carry two bags of drugs across the border into
Malaysia. If he disobeyed, he would be shot.
He was convicted and he appealed.
Held : In the presence of the robbers it was
reasonable for him to have the apprehension
of being killed instantly if he refused to carry
out their threat
3) The threat must be against the accused
It must be directed to himself and not a
threat to kill the wife, children, parents etc.
4) The threat must continue to exist at the
time of doing the act
Mohamed Yusof bin Hj Ahmad v PP
It must be reasonable fear at the very time. If
the offence is committed at the time of the
threat has been removed, the accused person
will not be able to raise defence under S.94 of
PC.
Held : The fact he had carried the bag for
about one and a half hour and placed the bag
on the platform while purchasing the ticket to
Padang Besar shows that the mission has
been completed. He made no attempt to
approached any member of the public or
authorities for help when had chance to do
so.
The distance between the accused himself
and the Thai man was 20 feet away and he
had made no attempt to ask for help. There
was nothing to suggest that the threat was
present and continuing at that time
However,
Subramaniam
The court held that there was threat
continuing to be present at the time of
carrying the ammunition although the
terrorists had left at the time of captured. But
the menace might still continuing to present
at the time of captured as the terrorists might
have come back at any time

R v Hudson & Taylor

The appellants were convicted for perjury.
The accused who joined the rebellion under
the compulsion of threats cannot plead
duress if he remains with the rebels after the
threats have lost effect and his own will has
had a chance to re-assert himself.

Held : The right to plead duress may be lost if

the accused has failed to take steps to
remove the threat. Eg: seeking police
protection
An accused person who committed the crime
after the threat has loss its effect cannot rely
on the defence of duress or he has the chance
to rescue himself and continue to commit it.
A threat of future violence is insufficient as it
is too remote as it is insufficient to overpower
the will at the time of commission.