The case of R v Hudson & Taylor is a leading English authority on the scope of the defence of duress in criminal law. It concerns whether duress may be raised when the threat is not capable of immediate execution within the courtroom, but is nonetheless powerful enough to overcome the will of the accused. The Court of Appeal’s decision provided important clarification on what is meant by a “present” threat and widened the understanding of duress as a defence in circumstances where intimidation and coercion play a central role.
This case brief explores the background facts, the legal issues, the decision, and the reasoning of the court, before examining its significance in shaping the law of duress.
Facts of R v Hudson & Taylor Case
In R v Hudson & Taylor, the two defendants were young women aged 17 and 19. They had witnessed a fight in a public house, and were called to give evidence in the criminal proceedings against one of those involved in the altercation.
Prior to the trial, the two girls were threatened with violence if they gave evidence against the defendant. These threats were not isolated but were repeated on several occasions leading up to the hearing. The threats continued on the day of the trial itself. In fact, the man who had issued the threats was present in the public gallery of the court and fixed the girls with menacing stares throughout the proceedings.
When called to testify, the defendants did not identify the accused man. Instead, they gave false evidence so as not to implicate him. Their actions later led to charges of perjury being brought against them.
At their trial for perjury, the girls sought to rely on duress as a defence. They explained that their lies were given because they feared violent retaliation if they testified truthfully. The trial judge, however, directed the jury that the defence of duress was not available in the circumstances. The reasoning was that the threats were not of immediate violence since the defendants were inside the courtroom and, at that precise moment, the threats could not be carried out.
The jury followed this direction and convicted both defendants of perjury.
The Issue
The central issue in R v Hudson & Taylor was whether the defence of duress can be raised when the threat is not capable of instant execution in the location where the crime is committed, but is still so compelling that it neutralises the will of the accused.
More specifically, the question was whether the requirement of a “present” threat meant a danger of immediate physical violence at the very moment of the offence, or whether it extended to threats which, although not instantly realisable, were still operative in the mind of the accused at the time.
R v Hudson & Taylor Judgement
The Court of Appeal in R v Hudson & Taylor allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions. It held that the defence of duress should have been left to the jury to decide. The trial judge was wrong to withdraw the defence from consideration.
Lord Justice Widgery delivered the leading judgement. He clarified that the notion of a “present” threat did not require the threatened violence to be capable of instant execution in the courtroom itself. What was required was that the threat should be sufficiently powerful to destroy the will of the accused at the moment of the offence.
His Lordship stated that:
“The threat must be a ‘present’ threat in the sense that it is effective to neutralise the will of the accused at that time. When, however, there is no opportunity for delaying tactics, and the person threatened must make up his mind whether he is to commit the criminal act or not, the existence at that moment of threats sufficient to destroy his will ought to provide him with a defence even though the threatened injury may not follow instantly, but after an interval.”
Applying this reasoning, the Court of Appeal found that the threats made to the appellants were no less compelling simply because their execution could not be effected inside the courtroom itself. The threats could still have been carried out in the streets outside the court or later that evening. This was enough to satisfy the requirement of a “present” threat for the purposes of duress.
Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the convictions were quashed.
Court’s Reasoning in R v Hudson & Taylor
The judgement in R v Hudson & Taylor provides key insight into the court’s approach to the defence of duress.
- Nature of the Threat: The court emphasised that the essential characteristic of duress is the ability of the threat to overbear the will of the accused. What matters is not whether the threat could be carried out instantly at the very moment of the offence, but whether, from the perspective of the accused, the threat was operative and compelling at that time.
- “Present” Threat Requirement: The concept of a “present” threat was interpreted flexibly. It was not confined to a situation where a weapon was literally held to the accused’s head at the instant of the offence. Rather, a threat can be present if its effect is immediate on the decision-making of the accused, even if the execution of violence might occur later.
- Role of the Jury: The court underlined that it was for the jury to assess whether the threats in question were sufficient to neutralise the free will of the defendants. By removing the defence of duress from the jury’s consideration, the trial judge had usurped their role.
- Protection of Young Defendants: The fact that the appellants were only 17 and 19 years old was relevant in appreciating how intimidating the threats must have appeared to them. The court recognised that threats can have a particularly strong effect on young or vulnerable defendants, though the ruling was expressed as a general principle applicable beyond their circumstances.
Conclusion
The case of R v Hudson & Taylor remains a leading authority on the defence of duress in English criminal law. It involved two young women who, having been repeatedly threatened with violence, gave false testimony in court to protect themselves. The trial judge’s ruling that duress was not available because the threat could not be carried out instantly was overturned by the Court of Appeal.
Lord Justice Widgery’s reasoning made clear that a “present” threat exists where the threat effectively neutralises the will of the accused at the time of the offence, even if the violence threatened might follow later. The appeal succeeded because the threats in this case were sufficient to overbear the girls’ will, and it was for the jury to decide whether duress was available.