If you commit a crime simply because you have been threatened with a dreadful consequence if you don't do it, you may have a defence. The standard defence is duress, but this is narrowly construed. The courts are reluctant to acknowledge necessity as a defence and so a new 'hybrid' defence of duress of circumstances has evolved in the last 15 years. The defence of Necessity is rarely used but was approved in the case of Re: A Conjoined Twins (2000). Duress is normally considered to be an excuse whereas necessity is more properly a justification. But the courts are not consistent in their use of terminology, and there are considerable overlaps between the three defences.

Duress in any of its forms is a recognition that an accused may be permitted to be asked to be excused liability on the basis of their will being overborne in the face of an external threat as a result of which they felt constrained to commit the alleged offence.

The case of RE: A CONJONED TWINS (2000) is one of the more recent examples. One of the vital pints to be considered by the CA was whether they could allow the separation to go on knowing that the weaker twin would not survive was necessity. Brooke LJ distinguished the defence of necessity from that of Duress "in cases of pure necessity the actors mind is not irresistibly over borne by external pressures the claim is that his/her conduct was not harmful because on a choice of 2 evils the choice of choosing the lesser of 2 evils was justified".

Brooke LJ referred to Stephens 'Digest of Criminal Law' (1983) which gave 4 factors to be considered if the necessity was to be successful 1). The act was done only to avoid consequences, which could not otherwise be avoided. 2). If the potential consequences occurred they would've been responsible for inflicting evil. 3). No more was done then necessarily needed. And 4). The evil avoided was lesser then the evil inflicted. Therefore justifying the death of the weaker twin on the basis of necessity. Walker J concluded that the operation would be in the best interests of both twins. But one has to die how can they both be triumphant.

The two fold test for duress is whether D's reasonable belief gave him good cause to fear death or serious injury (element of subjective test) and whether the 'sober person of reasonable firmness' sharing D's characteristics would have done as D did (objective test). As shown in the case of GRAHAM (1982), D was a homosexual lived in menage a trios with his wife and a man. D played a leading part in the killing of his wife but said that he acted under duress and that the drink and drugs he had taken had affected his behaviour. The CA upheld his conviction for murder. There is an objective element in the defence of duress; the jury must determine whether the threat was one, which the D in question could not reasonably have been expected to resist.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Whereby D's, Doss Act, TAYLOR DRYDEN, HUDSON TAYLOR, Criminal Law', Conjoined Twins, DUDLEY STEPHENS, Firearms ACT, , WILLER CONWAY, duress circumstances, defence duress, defence necessity, death serious, ca quashed conviction, law commission, defence murder, serious injury, defence available, quashed conviction, ca quashed, death serious injury, defence duress circumstances, threat death serious, defence necessity duress,
Approximate Word count = 2960
Approximate Pages = 12 (250 words per page double spaced)