R v Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412
Facts
Gotts attacked his mother with a knife, intending to kill her, but she survived with serious injuries. He said his father had ordered the attack and threatened to kill him if he refused. The prosecution charged attempted murder. The case raised whether the rule excluding duress as a defence to murder also applied where the intended victim survived. Gotts relied on the threat as an excuse for acting, rather than claiming that he lacked an intention to kill or that his mother had posed a threat requiring self-defence.
Legal Issue
Was duress available as a defence to attempted murder even though it was excluded as a defence to the completed offence of murder?
Held
The House of Lords held, by a majority, that duress was not a defence to attempted murder. It considered the intentional character of the attempted killing and the policy underlying the exclusion of duress from murder. The survival of the victim did not justify making the defence available for the attempt.
The decision addressed excuse, not the prosecution's obligation to prove the elements of attempted murder. In particular, intention to kill remained necessary; a threat could be relevant to understanding why the defendant acted without itself negating that intention. The rule should not be extended to every attempted offence, because the exclusion concerned the particular offence of attempted murder.
⭐ Legal Principle
Duress is not a defence to attempted murder. The prosecution must nevertheless prove the necessary intention to kill and conduct amounting to an attempt. The absence of the defence is specific to this offence and does not establish that duress is unavailable for all inchoate crimes.
Significance
Gotts should be studied with Howe on murder. It shows that the law's refusal to excuse an intentional killing under threats can apply even where the intended victim survives. The distinction between motive and intention is particularly important: a defendant may act because of fear while still intending death. Students should avoid saying that any serious threat necessarily prevents the mental element of attempted murder from being formed.
Common exam questions about this case
Why did the victim's survival not make duress available?
The majority focused on the deliberate attempt to kill and the policy underlying the murder exclusion. It considered that the availability of the defence should not turn on whether the intended victim happened to survive. That conclusion concerned attempted murder specifically, rather than every offence stopped short of completion.
Did the alleged threat necessarily negate an intention to kill?
No. A person may intend to kill because they fear the consequences of refusing. The reason for acting and the intended result are different matters. The prosecution still had to prove intent to kill, but the asserted duress did not automatically disprove that intention.
Should Gotts be applied to all attempts?
No. The ruling concerns the particular exclusion of duress for attempted murder. Other attempted offences require examination of the usual defence rules and their own elements. An answer that treats the word attempt as sufficient to exclude duress would extend the decision beyond its legal basis.