Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The liability of the duressor

  • Published:
The Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusions

It has been argued that a better understanding of the nature of excuses gives rise to solutions to many problems concerning the liability of secondary parties. The duressor has been shown in many cases to be guilty of incitement, and liable as a secondary party, but it has been submitted that his liability should generally be seen to be as principal in the first degree acting through the innocent agency of the duressee. What he does is best described thus, and problems in the law of complicity are avoided. One of the consequences of the adoption of the Law Commission proposal would be to end the possibility of securing convictions as innocent agents, and the recommendation ought therefore to be rejected.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Law Commission Report No. 83,Defences of General Application (hereinafter Report) para 2.34.

  2. Thus no appeal was taken on the question inBourne (1952) 36 C.A.R. 125.

  3. [1977] Q.B. 868.

  4. Textbook of Criminal Law, London, Stevens, 1978, 387 n. 3.

  5. Cf. Criminal Law Act 1977 s.51.

  6. Sexual Offences Act 1956 s. 11.

  7. [1977] Q.B. 868 at 872.

  8. [1977] Q.B. 868 at 872.

  9. Infra. [1975] A.C. 476.

  10. [1975] A.C. 476.

  11. [1978] A.C. 979.

  12. Cf. Law Commission Report No. 102,Criminal Law, Attempt, and Impossibility in Relation to Attempt, Conspiracy and Incitement at 29–54 and 74–80.

  13. R v Green [1976] Q.B. 985;R v Nock (C.A.) The Times 1st Feb. 1978; cf. Dennis, “Impossibility in Inchoate Offences”,Current Legal Problems (1978), 31.

  14. [1978] 2 All E.R. 654 at 662.

  15. (1962) 47 C.A.R.37.

  16. [1978] 2 All E.R. 654 at 663.

  17. Criminal Law Review (1978), 483 at 485.

  18. Op.cit. note 6,Textbook of Criminal Law, London, Stevens, 1978, 1st Supplement 17.

  19. “Inciting the Impossible”,Criminal Law Review (1979), 239 at 240–1.

  20. Cohen rightly points out that to hold otherwise would be “obviously illogical”,ibid.,Criminal Law Review (1979), 239 at 242–3.

  21. Quoted by Glanville Williams,supra note 22.Op.cit. note 6,Textbook of Criminal Law, London, Stevens, 1978,

  22. (1962) 47 C.A.R. at 39.

  23. Supra note 6Textbook of Criminal Law, London, Stevens, 1978, at 79–80.

  24. R v Donnelly [1970] N.Z.L.R. 980.

  25. Ibid., R v Donnelly [1970] N.Z.L.R. at 991.

  26. [1975] A.C. 476 at 497.

  27. [1949] L.J.R. 1626 at 1630, 33 C.A.R. 102 at 110.

  28. Cf. Temkin. “Impossible Attempts — Another View”, 39Modern Law Review (1976), 55.

  29. Cf. Glanville Williams, “Three Rogues’ Charters”,Criminal Law Review (1980), 263 at 271.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ibid., Glanville Williams, “Three Rogues’ Charters”,Criminal Law Review (1980), at 269.

  31. (1978) 68 C.A.R. 168.

  32. Ibid., (1978) 68 C.A.R. at 177.

  33. Criminal Law Act 1977 s.5(7).

  34. [1975] A.C. 476 at 500.

  35. Ibid., [1975] A.C. 476 at 494.

  36. Criminal Law, 4th Ed., Butterworths, 1978, at 214.

  37. Law Commission Working Paper No. 50 (1973), at 71, para. 101.

  38. See Dennis, “Duress, Murder and Criminal Responsibility”, 96Law Quarterly Review (1980), 208 at 219–37.

  39. Baker, “Acting under Duress”, 3Canadian Journal of Philosophy (1974), 515 and Dennis,op.cit. “Duress, Murder and Criminal Responsibility”, 96Law Quarterly Review (1980), 208 at 220–1.

  40. Miers, “Duress as a Defence to Murder”, 25Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly (1974), 464

  41. Miers,op.cit. “Duress as a Defence to Murder”, 25Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly at 471.

  42. Cf. Radbruch, “Jurisprudence in the Criminal Law”,Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law (1936), 212 at 218.

  43. History of the Criminal Law of England, Burt Franklin, 1883, Vol. III, 1.

  44. [1934] I.R. 518 at 526.

  45. [1975] A.C. 653 at 673.

  46. Ibid., [1975] A.C. 653 at 711.

  47. [1977] A.C. 755.

  48. E.g. Dennis,supra note 42 “Duress, Murder and Criminal Responsibility”, 96Law Quarterly Review (1980), at 209–219.

  49. Report, para. 2.44.

  50. This would require the adoption of the strange moral thesis which Glover calls “an extreme belief in the irrelevance of numbers”,Causing Death and Saving Lives, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1977, 206–10.

  51. “The Individualization of Excusing Conditions”, 47Southern California Law Review (1974), 1269 at 1306.

  52. Criminal Law Act 1977 s. 1(1).

  53. R v Mohan [1976] Q.B. 1.

  54. This is assumed by Criminal Law Act 1977 Sched. 2 (para 22 and 24) and Sched. 3 (para. 33 and 35). Williams,supra note 6Textbook of Criminal Law, London, Stevens, 1978, at 285, appears to be incorrect on this point.

  55. E.g.D.P.P. v Lynch [1975] A.C. 476.

  56. Possibly only knowledge will suffice. Cf. Law Commission Working Paper No. 50 at 71.

  57. (1875) L.R. 2 C.C.R. 154.

  58. Cf.supra note 62. Law Commission Working Paper No. 50 at 71.

  59. Report, para. 2.34.

  60. As to which cf. Glanville Williams,Criminal Law, The General Part, London, Stevens, 2nd ed. 1961, 349–53.

  61. E.g. insanity. Cf.R v Tyler & Price (1838) 8 C. & P. 616.

  62. Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s.20.

  63. R v Richards [1974] Q.B. 776, criticised, it is submitted correctly, by Beaumont, “Abetting without a Principal — A Problem in the Law of Complicity”, 30Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly (1979), at 4–7.

  64. Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, s.18.

  65. [1976] Q.B. 217.

  66. Cf. Beaumont,loc. cit., supra note 69 “Abetting without a Principal — A Problem in the Law of Complicity”, 30Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly (1979), at 16.

  67. Op.cit., supra note 6Textbook of Criminal Law, London, Stevens, 1978, at 320.

  68. (1952) 36 C.A.R. 125.

  69. Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.61.

  70. Criminal Justice Act, 1925, s:47.

  71. Edwards, “Duress and Aiding and Abetting”, 69Law Quarterly Review (1953), 226; Cross, “Duress and Aiding and Abetting — A Reply”, 69Law Quarterly Review (1953), 334; Dennis,loc. cit., supra note 42; “Duress, Murder and Criminal Responsibility”, 96Law Quarterly Review (1980), Glanville Williams,op.cit., supra note 6Textbook of Criminal Law, London, Stevens, 1978, at 389.

  72. “If there is no principal there can be no accessory”,R v Vaux (1591) Co. Rep. 44a at 44b, and 76 E.R. 992 at 993.

  73. “Aid, Abet, Counsel or Procure” inReshaping The Criminal Law (ed. Glazebrook), London, Stevens, 1979, 120 at 135.

  74. Cf. Beaumont,supra note 69 “Abetting without a Principal — A Problem in the Law of Complicity”, 30Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly (1979), at 21–2.

  75. [1951] 2 All E.R. 645.

  76. Supra note 69 “Abetting without a Principal — A Problem in the Law of Complicity”, 30Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly (1979), at 15.

  77. [1964] 2 Q.B. 341.

  78. Callow v Tillstone (1900) 83 L.T. 411.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University College, Cardiff

    P. W. Alldridge (Lecturer in Law)

Authors
  1. P. W. Alldridge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

I am greatly indebted to my colleagues David Miers and Stephen White.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alldridge, P.W. The liability of the duressor. Liverpool Law Rev 3, 37–51 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03185288

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03185288

Keywords

Search

Navigation