R v Bowen is an important decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the defence of duress and the characteristics that may be taken into account when applying the objective test of reasonable firmness. The case clarifies whether low intelligence, vulnerability, and abnormal suggestibility can be treated as relevant characteristics when assessing whether a defendant acted under duress.
In R v Bowen, the Court of Appeal examined whether the trial judge had misdirected the jury by failing to direct them to consider the defendant’s low IQ and vulnerability when assessing the defence of duress. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
Facts of R v Bowen Case
In R v Bowen, the appellant had obtained electrical goods on approximately 40 occasions, amounting to a total value of £20,000. He did so by applying for a number of ‘instant credit’ arrangements. In each case, he paid part of the deposit but did not complete payment for the goods concerned.
He was eventually arrested while attempting to purchase a video recorder using the same process. When questioned, he admitted that he had sold the goods and had stopped paying the finance company to which he owed money. He also stated that he did not know that his actions amounted to a criminal offence.
At trial, the defendant claimed that he had acted under duress. He stated that two men had threatened him, telling him that he and his family would be petrol bombed if he did not obtain the goods. He further claimed that he had been warned that if he went to the police, his family would be attacked.
A specialist gave evidence during the trial. The specialist stated that the defendant had a reading age equivalent to that of a child and an IQ of 68. He was described as a vulnerable individual and as being abnormally suggestible.
Despite this evidence, the trial judge directed the jury only to consider the defendant’s age and gender when assessing whether a person of reasonable firmness would have acted as he did. The judge did not direct the jury that they could take into account the defendant’s vulnerability or low intelligence. The defendant was convicted and appealed against the conviction.
Legal Issue
The central issue in R v Bowen was whether the trial judge had misdirected the jury by failing to direct them that the defendant’s vulnerability and low IQ should be taken into account when assessing the defence of duress.
More specifically, the question was whether characteristics such as low intelligence, abnormal suggestibility, and vulnerability could properly be attributed to the hypothetical person of reasonable firmness for the purposes of the objective test in duress.
The Defence of Duress
The case concerned the proper application of the objective test within the defence of duress. The defence requires consideration of whether a person of reasonable firmness, sharing certain characteristics of the defendant, would have acted in the same way.
In R v Bowen, the appeal focused on which characteristics may properly be attributed to that hypothetical reasonable person. The defendant argued that his low IQ and vulnerability were relevant and should have been placed before the jury as characteristics to be considered.
R v Bowen Judgement
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in R v Bowen and upheld the conviction.
The court held that the direction given by the trial judge was appropriate. The judge had directed the jury to consider age and gender, but had not included low intelligence or vulnerability. The Court of Appeal concluded that this approach was correct.
Reasoning of the Court in R v Bowen
In R v Bowen, Stuart Smith LJ identified the types of characteristics that may properly be taken into account when applying the objective test of reasonable firmness in cases of duress.
The court accepted that certain characteristics may be relevant, including:
- Age
- Sex
- Pregnancy
- Serious physical disability
- A recognised mental illness or psychiatric condition
However, the court drew a clear distinction between recognised mental illness and low intelligence. The court held that a low IQ falls short of being a recognised mental impairment. Therefore, it could not be taken into account.
The court further held that characteristics such as abnormal suggestibility and vulnerability were not compatible with the concept of a person of reasonable firmness. The objective standard would be undermined if such traits were attributed to the hypothetical reasonable person.
Accordingly, in R v Bowen, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge had not misdirected the jury. The omission of vulnerability and low intelligence from the list of relevant characteristics was correct in law.
Treatment of Low Intelligence
A key point in R v Bowen was the treatment of low intelligence. The specialist evidence established that the defendant had an IQ of 68 and a reading age equivalent to that of a child. Nevertheless, the court held that low intelligence alone does not amount to a recognised mental illness or psychiatric condition.
The court therefore rejected the argument that low IQ could be taken into account when assessing the objective limb of the defence of duress.
This distinction is significant. The court did not suggest that mental illness could never be relevant. On the contrary, a recognised mental illness or psychiatric condition may be considered. However, low intelligence without such recognised illness is insufficient.
Vulnerability and Suggestibility
The defendant in R v Bowen was described as vulnerable and abnormally suggestible. The argument on appeal was that these characteristics made him more susceptible to threats and therefore should have been considered when determining whether a person of reasonable firmness would have yielded.
The Court of Appeal rejected this argument. It held that abnormal suggestibility and vulnerability are not characteristics compatible with the standard of reasonable firmness. If such traits were attributed to the reasonable person, the objective nature of the test would be weakened.
The court maintained the importance of preserving an objective standard in the defence of duress. The hypothetical person must retain reasonable firmness and cannot be reduced to a person unusually susceptible to pressure.
Outcome
The appeal in R v Bowen was dismissed. The conviction was upheld.
The court confirmed that:
- Age, gender, pregnancy, serious physical disability, and recognised mental illness may be relevant characteristics.
- Low intelligence is not a relevant characteristic.
- Vulnerability and abnormal suggestibility are not characteristics that can be attributed to the reasonable person in the objective test for duress.
The direction given by the trial judge was therefore considered correct.
Conclusion
In summary, R v Bowen concerned a defendant who obtained electrical goods by deception over numerous occasions, claiming that he acted under threats to himself and his family. Despite evidence of low intelligence and vulnerability, the Court of Appeal held that these characteristics could not be taken into account when applying the objective test of reasonable firmness in the defence of duress.
The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld. The case establishes that while age, gender, serious physical disability, and recognised mental illness may be relevant, low intelligence and abnormal suggestibility are not.
R v Bowen remains an important authority on the scope of the objective test in duress and the limits of personal characteristics that may be considered.