R. v. Hasan, (2005) 332 N.R. 128 (HL)

• Case Date: March 17, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 332 N.R. 128 (HL)

R. v. Hasan (2005), 332 N.R. 128 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] N.R. TBEd. AP.012

Regina v. Hasan (respondent) (On appeal from the Court of appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly Regina v. Z (2003) (On appeal from the Court of appeal (Criminal Division))

([2005] UKHL 22)

Indexed As: R. v. Hasan

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

March 17, 2005.

Summary:

The accused, who had worked as a driver and "minder" for a woman who ran an escort agency and was involved in prostitution, was charged with aggravated burglary. He raised the defence of duress, claiming that the woman and her new "minder" had forced him to commit the burglary. The jury con­victed the accused. The accused appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused, holding that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the issue of duress. The Crown appealed.

The House of Lords allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the defence of duress was not available in the cir­cumstances of this case.

Criminal Law - Topic 202

General principles - Common law defences - Duress - The accused, who had worked as a driver and "minder" for a woman who ran an escort agency and was involved in prostitution, was charged with aggravated bur­glary - The accused raised the defence of duress, claiming that the woman and her new "minder" had forced him to commit the burglary - The jury convicted the ac­cused - The conviction was set aside on ap­peal - The Crown appealed, raising an is­sue respecting whether the defence of duress was excluded when the accused had volun­tarily associated with others engaged in criminal activity - The House of Lords allowed the appeal and restored the convic­tion, holding that the defence of duress was not available in the circumstances of this case - See paragraphs 1 to 81 - The court stated that "the defence of duress is excluded when as a result of the accused's voluntary association with others engaged in criminal activity he foresaw or ought reasonably to have foreseen the risk of be­ing subjected to any compulsion by threats of violence" - See paragraph 39.

Cases Noticed:

Attorney-General v. Whelan, [1934] I.R. 518, refd to. [para. 18].

Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland v. Lynch, [1975] A.C. 653, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Hibbert (L.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 973; 184 N.R. 165; 84 O.A.C. 161; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Cole, [1994] Crim. L.R. 582, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Burke et al., [1987] A.C. 417; 74 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Howe - see R. v. Burke et al.

R. v. Gotts, [1992] 2 A.C. 412; 144 N.R. 367 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 21].

Alexander MacGrowther's Case, Re (1746), Fost. 13; 168 E.R. 8, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Conway, [1989] Q.B. 290, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Wright, [2000] Crim. L.R. 510, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Ruzic (M.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687; 268 N.R. 1; 145 O.A.C. 235; 153 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Graham, [1982] 1 W.L.R. 294, refd to. [para. 23].

Thomson v. HM Advocate, 1983 J.C. 69, refd to. [para. 25].

Cochrane v. HM Advocate, 2001 SCCR 655, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Hudson and Taylor, [1971] 2 Q.B. 202 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor, [1­956] 1 W.L.R. 965 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Cole, [1994] Crim. L.R. 582, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Fitzpatrick, [1977] N.I. 20, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Sharp, [1987] Q.B. 853, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Shepherd (1987), 86 Cr. App. Rep. 47, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Ali, [1995] Crim. L.R. 303, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Baker and Ward, [1999] 2 Cr. App. Rep. 335, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Heath, [2000] Crim. L.R. 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Harmer, [2002] Crim. L.R. 401 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Safi, [2003] Crim L.R. 721, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Sat-Bhambra (1989), 88 Cr. App. Rep. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Saunders v. UK (1997), 23 E.H.R.R. 313, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Sharp, [1988] 1 W.L.R. 7; [1988] 1 All E.R. 65; 88 N.R. 47 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Sang, [1980] A.C. 402 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Chi-Ming et al., [1991] 2 A.C. 212; 122 N.R. 307 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Fulling, [1987] Q.B. 426 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Pearce (1979), 69 Cr. App. Rep. 365, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Park (1994), 99 Cr. App. Rep. 270, refd to. [para. 55].

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. Harz, [1967] 1 A.C. 760 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 56].

Brown v. Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dun­fermline), [2000] N.R. Uned. 256; [2003] 1 A.C. 681 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 61].

Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza, [2004] N.R. Uned. 112; [2004] 2 A.C. 557 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Howe, [1986] Q.B. 626 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ashworth, Andrew, Principles of Criminal Law (4th Ed. 2003), p. 228 [para. 70].

Ashworth, Case Comment on R. v. Safi, [2003] Crim. L.R. 721, p. 723 [para. 38].

Dennis, Duress, Murder and Criminal Responsibility (1980), 96 L.Q.R. 208, generally [para. 22].

Edwards, Compulsion, Coercion and Crim­inal Responsibility (1951), 14 M.L.R. 297, generally [para. 22].

Elliott, Necessity Duress and Self-Defence, [1989] Crim. L.R. 611, pp. 614, 615 [para. 38].

Hart, H.L.A., Punishment and Responsibil­ity (1960), p. 16 [para. 22].

Horder, Autonomy, Provocation and Du­ress, [1992] Crim. L.R. 706, p. 709 [para. 25].

Horder, Jeremy, Occupying the moral high ground? The Law Commission on duress, [1994] Crim. L.R. 334, generally [para. 73].

Hume, Commentaries, vol. 1, p. 53 [para. 25].

Smith, John Cyril, and Hogan, Brian, Criminal Law (10th Ed. 2002), pp. 254, 258 [para. 21].

Stephen, James, A History of the Criminal Law of England (1883), vol. 2, p. 106 [para. 22].

United Kingdom, Law Commission, Criminal Law, Report on Defences of General Application (1977), Law Com. No. 83, Cm. 556, generally [para. 67]; paras. 2.38 [para. 34]; 2.44 to 2.46 [para. 21]; 2.46(8) [para. 34]; clause 1(5) [para. 75].

United Kingdom, Law Commission, Report on Codification of the Criminal Law (1985), Law Com. No. 143, generally [para. 67]; para. 13.19 [para. 34]; clause 45(4) [para. 75].

United Kingdom, Law Commission, Re­port on A Criminal Code For England and Wales (1989), Law Com. No. 177, gen­erally [para. 67]; clause 42(5) [paras. 34, 75].

United Kingdom, Law Commission, Re­port on Legislating the Criminal Code, Offences against the Person and General Principles (1993), Law Com. No. 218, Cm. 2370, generally [para. 67]; paras. 33, 34 [para. 20].

United Kingdom, Law Commission, De­fences of General Application, Working Paper No. 55 (1974), generally [para. 67]; para. 26 [para. 34].

Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law - The General Part (2nd Ed. 1961), p. 755 [para. 18].

Williams, Glanville, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 636 [para. 27].

Wilson, William, The Structure of Crim­inal Defences, [2005] Crim. L.R. 108, generally [para. 73].

Counsel:

None disclosed.

Agents:

None disclosed.

This appeal was heard before Lord Bing­ham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, of the House of Lords. The deci­sion of the House was given on March 17, 2005, when the following speeches were delivered:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill - see para­graphs 1 to 40;

Lord Steyn - see paragraphs 41 to 65;

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry - see para­graph 66;

Baroness Hale of Richmond - see para­graphs 67 to 80;

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood - see paragraph 81.