Duress by indirect threats R v Brandford [2016] EWCA Crim 1794, [2017] 4 WLR 17, Court of Appeal
| Published date | 01 April 2017 |
| Author | Tony Storey |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018317698624 |
| Date | 01 April 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
temporal or purposive link between the knife and the appellant’. Consequently, this closes the door to
any future debate about what precise distance has to exist between the appellant and the blade (given that
in the precedent cases, six feet was close enough but two floors of a building was not). The question is
one of accessibility and availability rather than simply precise distances.
Interestingly, the court in Henderson made reference to the issue of whether the knife was to be used
in criminal activity, possibly creating an unanticipated curveball in terms of future precedent. This is all
the more curious given the purposive approach to interpretation that has been taken throughout all the
cases. The offence of ‘having a blade in a public place’ contrary to s. 139 Criminal Justice Act 1988 is
one which requires no action on the part of the defendant, other than the simple possession (or rather
‘having with him’) of the bladed article. The bladed article does not have to be held for a specific
purpose, criminal or otherwise, and in fact, many defendants have been caught by the legislation when in
possession of the knife for what could be construed as fairly innocent reasons (e.g. using a knife to cut
tiles for work (DPP vGregson [1993] 96 Cr. App. R. 240) or using a bladed article to work on a car in the
street (RvManning [1997] Lexis Citation 5150)). Although the earlier cases appeared to involve some
sort of criminal activity within their facts, to ma ke explicit reference to criminal enterpr ise in the
summary of law could be construed as something of a red herring. One could query what might have
been the case if, for example, the knife in Henderson had been suspiciously taped to the top of the glove
compartment in the car, rather than having been left in a bag containing baby changing items? A clever
knife carrier might choose his hiding place wisely to avoid any suggestion of criminal enterprise,
whereas a genuine defendant, who was legitimately using his knife for work but who chose his hiding
place carefully to avoid detection or challenge, may be considered to be involved in criminal enterprise
and therefore looked upon with greater suspicion. It remains to be seen whether this reference to
‘criminal enterprise’ creates a new bandwagon for future defendants to jump upon in an effort to disguise
otherwise illegal activity.
Joanne Clough
Duress by indirect threats
Rv Brandford [2016] EWCA Crim 1794, [2017] 4 WLR 17,
Court of Appeal
Keywords
Conspiracy to supply controlled drugs; duress by threats
Olivia Brandford (B) was in a relationship with Dean Alford (A). In August 2014, the pair was arrested
when driving from London to Portsmouth. Upon her arrest, B was found to have concealed within her
body 121 wraps containing Class A drugs – 77 of the wraps contained cocaine and 44 contained heroin.
Collectively, the wraps had a street value of between £1500 and £2300. A and B, along with another
man, Michael Karemera (K), were charged with two counts of conspiracy to supply controlled drugs
(cocaine and heroin) contrary to s. 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. They appeared before HHJ Downing
and a jury at Woolwich Crown Court in January 2016.
At trial, all three defendants pleaded duress. A and K both claimed that they had been forced into
selling the drugs and threatened if they did not do so. B claimed that, the day before her arrest, A had told
her that he was being compelled to sell the drugs and that if he did not do so ‘something bad would
Court of Appeal 91
To continue reading
Request your trial