“Duress defence restricted - must be imminent threat with no escape opportunity”
Hasan was threatened by a violent drug dealer and claimed he committed burglary under duress. He had voluntarily associated with violent criminals involved in drug dealing and knew of their propensity for violence.
The scope and availability of the duress defence, particularly regarding voluntary association with criminals and the requirements for immediacy and opportunity to escape the threat.
The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, significantly restricting the duress defence and clarifying that it was not available to defendants who voluntarily associate with violent criminals.
This case provides the definitive modern statement of the duress defence requirements. It significantly narrowed the defence's availability and is essential for understanding when defendants can rely on threats to excuse their criminal conduct.
You're reading the free summary of Duress — R v Hasan. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.