Explore the Bowen [1997] case summary, a crucial reading for law students interested in the nuances of the defence of duress and how personal characteristics influence its application in UK law.

  • In the case of Bowen, it was established that in pleading the defence of duress the gender, age, and physical health of the defendant are relevant to the applicability of duress, but their intelligence is not

Facts of the Case R v Bowen

  • The defendant (D), Mr. Bowen, had obtained electrical goods amounting to around £20,000 by deception. When buying the electrical goods Mr. Bowen did so on credit and did not complete payments of these purchases. The defendant had acted as such due to threats he received from 2 men warning him that he and his family would be petrol bombed if he did not comply.
  • The defendant was said to be abnormally suggestable and vulnerable, with a low IQ of 68. During Mr. Bowen’s trial, the judge did not direct the jury to whether or not Mr. Bowen’s characteristics could be taken into account. The defendant was later convicted of obtaining services by deception but appealed this decision.

Issues in R v Bowen

  • During the initial trial a specialist was called in to provide evidence that Mr. Bowen had the reading age of a child, an IQ of 68, and was a vulnerable individual.
  • The issue here was whether the judge misdirected the jury because he did not state that the defendant’s vulnerability was to be taken into account when considering the defence of duress. The Jury was only directed to give regard to the defendant’s age and gender.

Held by Court (Court of Appeal)

  • Here, the court of appeals held that a low IQ short of mental impairment or mental defectiveness is not a relevant characteristic because it does not make the individuals who experience this less courageous or less able to withstand threats and pressure than ordinary people.
  • The appeal was dismissed, and the duress defence did not apply.

Stuart-Smith LJ

  • Stuart-Smith LJ stated in the case of duress age and sex were relevant characteristics and physical health might be a relevant characteristic, his thoughts on the others were as such:
  • The mere fact that the accused was more pliable, vulnerable, timid, or susceptible to threats than a normal person did not make it legitimate to invest in a reasonable/ordinary person with such characteristics for the purpose of considering the objective test.
  • The defendant might be within a category of persons whom the jury might think less able to resist pressure than people not within that category. Examples are age; possibly sex; pregnancy; serious physical disability, which might inhibit self-protection; recognised mental illness, or psychiatric condition.
  • Characteristics due to self-imposed abuse, like alcohol, drugs, or sniffing on glue could be relevant.
  • Characteristics which might be relevant in considering provocation would not really be relevant in cases of duress, for example, homosexuality.
  • Psychiatric evidence may be admissible to show that the accused was suffering from mental illness, mental impairment or recognised psychiatric condition provided persons generally suffering from such conditions might be more susceptible to pressure and threats and thus to aid the jury in their decision-making process as to whether a reasonable person suffering from such a condition might have been impelled to act as the defendant did.

Significance of the Case on the Development of the Law

The Bowen [1997] ruling significantly impacted the legal landscape regarding the defence of duress, particularly in how personal characteristics are considered. Its implications can be contextualized through related cases:

  1. Comparison with R v Howe [1987]: In Howe, the House of Lords ruled that duress cannot be a defence for murder, setting a precedent for limiting the scope of duress. Bowen further defined this limitation by specifying which personal characteristics (age, sex, physical health) can influence the defence’s applicability, excluding intelligence.
  2. Relation to R v Graham [1982]: Graham provided a two-stage test for duress, focusing on the defendant’s perspective and a reasonable person’s response. Bowen clarifies that only certain characteristics are relevant for the reasonable person test, emphasizing an objective standard in evaluating duress.
  3. Echoes of R v Martin [1989]: This case highlighted how psychological conditions could influence duress, with the court recognizing severe depression as a modifying factor. Bowen narrows this approach, stipulating that only certain mental impairments impact the reasonable person standard in duress defences.

Exam Questions and Answers

Below you will find answers to questions that are most commonly asked based on this case.

How does Bowen [1997] affect the defence of duress in cases involving mental health issues not classified as severe impairments?

Bowen [1997] significantly restricts the use of personal characteristics in defense of duress, particularly emphasizing that only age, sex, and physical health, not intelligence or mental health issues (unless severe), can modify this defence. Following Bowen, cases like R v Abdul-Hussain [1999] further clarify that the threshold for mental disorders impacting duress is high, requiring significant impairment to affect the defence. This interpretation ensures that duress remains a tightly controlled defence, primarily influenced by external pressures rather than internal vulnerabilities.

What are the implications of the Bowen ruling for legal defences in non-criminal contractual disputes?

While Bowen [1997] primarily addresses criminal law, its principles subtly influence contractual disputes, particularly in assessing duress or undue influence. Contract law, governed by cases such as Williams v Bayley [1866], also considers vulnerability and pressure, albeit more in the context of financial and emotional coercion. Bowen‘s emphasis on objective standards for duress could suggest a similar need for clarity and objectivity in evaluating undue influence in contracts, pushing parties to prove significant coercion or vulnerability clearly and objectively.

How has subsequent case law further defined or contradicted the principles set out in Bowen [1997] regarding personal characteristics and duress?

Since Bowen [1997], subsequent case law has both refined and challenged its principles. For instance, R v Hasan [2005] limits the application of duress to situations where the defendant voluntarily associates with people engaged in criminal activity, emphasizing foreseeability. This evolution indicates a narrower path for claiming duress, consistent with Bowen‘s stringent criteria for relevant personal characteristics. These developments underscore an ongoing judicial effort to balance individual vulnerabilities against the need for personal responsibility and foreseeability in criminal conduct.

Exclusive Industry Scoop

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