R v Howe [1987] AC 417
Facts
The linked appeals concerned defendants involved in killings who alleged that threats from others had compelled their participation. Some had physically killed, while others were prosecuted for participation in the crimes. They relied on fear of death if they refused. Earlier authority had distinguished the position of a secondary party from that of the actual killer. The House of Lords considered whether that distinction should remain and whether duress could excuse murder. The cases also raised how the ordinary requirements of duress were to be expressed to a jury.
Legal Issue
Is duress available as a defence to murder, and should a participant who did not inflict the fatal injury be treated differently from the actual killer?
Held
The House of Lords held that duress is not a defence to murder, whether the accused is the actual killer or a secondary party. It rejected the distinction recognised in the earlier decision in Lynch. The defendants' fear did not supply a complete defence to the murder charges on that basis.
The speeches also discussed the requirements of duress in offences where it is available, including the seriousness of the threat and the response expected of a person of reasonable firmness. Those observations did not undo the specific murder exclusion. The decision concerns an excuse for otherwise established liability; the prosecution must still prove the relevant elements and mode of participation in the killing.
⭐ Legal Principle
Duress is not a defence to murder for either a principal or a secondary party. The prosecution must still establish the offence and the defendant's legally sufficient participation. The murder exclusion should not be confused with the general tests governing duress for offences where it remains available.
Significance
Howe unifies the position of principals and accessories on duress to murder and supplies the foundation for Gotts on attempted murder. It is also a useful illustration of the distinction between intention and motive: threats may explain why a defendant intentionally participates without excusing the offence. Modern accessory-liability principles still have to be satisfied; Howe does not make presence under threat equivalent to intentional assistance in murder.
Common exam questions about this case
Can a secondary party to murder rely on duress under Howe?
No. The House of Lords rejected the earlier distinction between an actual killer and a secondary participant. Duress is unavailable for murder in either capacity. However, the prosecution must still prove that the defendant was legally responsible as a participant, rather than simply present at the scene.
Does a threat necessarily prevent an intention to participate?
No. A defendant may deliberately assist because they fear the consequences of refusing. The reason for acting and the intended participation are separate questions. Howe excludes the excuse of duress for murder, while leaving the prosecution's obligation to establish the necessary conduct and mental state intact.
How does Gotts relate to Howe?
Gotts considered whether the murder exclusion should also apply to attempted murder and held that it should. The two cases should be connected by the particular offences and their policy reasoning. They do not establish that duress is excluded from every offence involving violence or every form of attempt.