• In the case of Hudson and Taylor 1971 2 QB 202 it was held that a threat of violence to be committed shortly in the future can amount to a “present” threat and found the defence of duress to a charge of perjury.

Facts of the Case

  • The two defendants were girls aged nineteen and seventeen and were charged with perjury in that on the trial of a man for wounding they had stated that the accused was not the man they had seen when in fact he was.  
  • They used the defence of duress.
  • They had stated various times before the trial that if they identified the accused, violence would be done to them with one of the persons which had threatened them had been present in the public gallery of the court while they were giving evidence.
  • The recorder directed the jury that as the offence was committed in the courtroom where there was no danger of violence, the defendants’ evidence could not amount to the defence of duress.
  • The defendants were convicted and subsequently appealed.

Issues in Hudson and Taylor 1971 2 QB 202

  • Was the threat of violence considered immediate in order to warrant the defence of duress?

Held by Court of Appeal

  • Appeal allowed

Lord Parker CJ

  • It was held that the threat described by the defendants were no less “present” because they could not be implemented at the very moment of the commission of the offence but only a few hours later.
  • “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. In so far, therefore, as the recorder ruled as a matter of law that the threats were not sufficiently present and immediate to support the defence of duress we think that he was in error. He should have left the jury to decide whether the threats had overborne the will of the appellants at the time when they gave the false evidence. “ pg207

Study Law in the UK

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.