R v Hudson ; R v Taylor
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 17 March 1971 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1971] EWCA Crim J0317-1 |
| Docket Number | No. 3715/A/70 No. 3721//A/70 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 17 March 1971 |
[1971] EWCA Crim J0317-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)
Lord Justice Widgery
and
Mr. Justice Cooke
No. 3715/A/70
and
No. 3721//A/70
MR. J. HAZAN, Q.C. and MR. R. BROWN appeared as Counsel for the Appellants.
MR. D. FRANKS appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
The Judgment of the Court which I am about to read was prepared by Lord Justice Widgery:
These appellants were convicted of perjury at the Manchester Crown Court on the 18th May 1970 and each was granted a conditional discharge. They now appeal against their convictions by leave of the single Judge.
On the 6th April 1969 a fight took place in a Salford public house between one Wright and one Mulligan with the result that Wright was charged with wounding Mulligan. Each of the present appellants gave statements to the police and they were the principal prosecution witnesses at Wright's trial. Elaine Taylor is 19 and Linda Hudson is 17.
Wright's trial took place on the 4th August 1969 but when called to give evidence the appellants failed to identify Wright as Mulligan's assailant. Taylor said she knew no one called Jimmy Wright, and Hudson said that the only Wright she knew was hot the man in the dock. Wright, Was accordingly acquitted and, in due course, the appellants were charged with perjury. At their trial they admitted that the evidence which they had given was false but set up the defence of duress. The basis of the defence was that, shortly after the fight between Wright and Mulligan, Hudson had been approached by a group of men including one who had a reputation for violence and was warned that if she "told on Wright in court" they would get her and cut her up. Hudson passed this warning to Taylor who said that she had also been warned by other girls to be careful or she would be hurt. The appellants said in evidence that in consequence of these threats they were frightened and decided to tell lies in court in order to avoid the consequences which might follow if they testified against Wright. This resolve was strengthened when they arrived at Court for Wright's trial and saw that Farell was in the gallery.
The learned Recorder directed the jury as a matter of law that the defence of duress was not open to the Appellants in these circumstances. He said:
"In my direction to you which you have to obey I tell you that duress can only arise when there is a threat made of death or serious personal injury and that threat must be a present immediate threat".
Later he continued:
"Assuming everything in favour of these two girls"……. assuming that Farell did make this threat to Hudson……. assuming that that information was passed on by Hudson to Taylor and assuming that the girls believed it; assuming in favour of Elaine Taylor and Linda Hudson that Elaine Taylor was approached on various occasions by young women who said to her "Be careful and watch it" … assuming all that to be 100% in their favour I direct you as a matter of law that that does not amount to duress. These girls may very well have thought that if they did not tell lies something very unpleasant might happen to them in the future, but that is not a present immediate threat capable of being then and there carried out because when they told lies they were in a court of law with the Recorder of Salford there for protection and with the police there in court and, Members of the Jury, I direct you that that does not amount to duress".
It is now submitted that this was a misdirection in law and that the case should have been left to the jury to determine, as a fact, whether the appellants had acted under duress.
We have been referred to a large number of authorities and to the views of writers of text books. Despite the concern expressed in Stephen's "History of the Criminal Law in England" (Vol. 2. p.107) that it would be "a much greater misfortune for society at large if criminals could confer impunity upon their agents by threatening them with death or violence if they refused to execute their commands" it is clearly established that duress provides a defence in all offences including perjury (except possibly treason or murder as a principal) if the will of the accused has been overborne by threats of death or serious personal injury so that the commission of the alleged offence was no longer the voluntary act of the accused. This appeal raises two main...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Ruzic (M.), 2001 SCC 24
...[1999] E.W.J. No. 5092, refd to. [para. 70]. R. v. Graham, [1982] 1 All E.R. 801 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71]. R. v. Hudson and Taylor, [1971] 2 Q.B. 202 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Hurley and Murray, [1967] V.R. 526 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 75]. R. v. McCafferty, [1974] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 89 (S.......
-
R. v. Ruzic (M.), 2001 SCC 24
...[1999] E.W.J. No. 5092, refd to. [para. 70]. R. v. Graham, [1982] 1 All E.R. 801 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71]. R. v. Hudson and Taylor, [1971] 2 Q.B. 202 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Hurley and Murray, [1967] V.R. 526 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 75]. R. v. McCafferty, [1974] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 89 (S.......
-
DPP v Gleeson
...excusing perjury in court despite the presence of police and other authorities may be regarded as outliers; see R v Hudson and Taylor [1971] 2 QB 202 and R v Batchelor [2013] EWCA Crim 2638. Any issue concerning threat to property excusing a crime may be explored in an appropriate case. P......
-
Attorney General's Reference (No. 2 of 2004); R v Quayle; R v Wales; R v Taylor; R v Kenny
... ... -Hussain [ 1999 ] Crim LR 570 ,CA R v Bourne [ 1939 ] 1 KB 687 ;[ 1938 ] 3 All ER 615 R v Brown [ 2003 ] EWCA Crim 2637 ,CA R v Conway [ 1989 ]Q B 290 ;[ 1988 ] 3 WLR 1238 ;[ 1988 ] 3 AllER 1025 ,CA R v Howe [ 1987 ]A C 417 ;[ 1987 ] 2 WLR 568 ;[ 1987 ] 1 AllER 771 , HL(E) R v Hudson [ 1971 ] 2 QB 202 ;[ 1971 ] 2 WLR 1047 ;[ 1971 ] 2 All ER 244 ,C A R v Lockwood [ 2002 ] EWCA Crim 60 ,CA R v Martin (Colin) [ 1989 ] 1 All ER 652 ,C A R v Martin (David) [ 2000 ] 2 Cr App R 42 ,C A R v Parker ( 2000 ) 188 DLR ( 4 th) 385 R v Pommell [ 1995 ] 2 CrApp R 607 ,C A R v ... ...
-
The Duplicity of Protection—Prosecuting Frightened Victims: An Act of Gender-Based Violence
...November 2011.24 Brabyn, above n. 5; see also S. Edwards, Sex and Gender in the Legal Process(Blackstone Press: London, 1996).25 [1971] 2 All ER 244, [1971] 2 QB 202.26 G. Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law, 2nd edn (Stevens & Sons:1983) 636.27 R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22, [2005] 2 AC 467 at [......
-
Recognising the Role of the Emotion of Fear in Offences and Defences
...Conference 2018, ‘Rape: Not as isolated issue: Sexual Violence andMultiple types of abuse’, 25–26 April.24. See R v Hudson, R v Taylor [1971] 2 QB 202.25. Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, ss 44, 45, 45A provides for [44]—Restrictions on reporting alleged offencesinvolving perso......
-
Necessity as a Defence to Murder: An Anglo-Canadian Perspective
...and L [2009] EWCA Crim 85 at [5], [8], [21], [26], and more broadly the case of RvPommel [1995] 2 Cr App R 607.88 RvHudson and Taylor [1971] 2 QB 202.89 RvHasan [2005] UKHL 22 at [28].90 RvAbdul-Hussain [1999] Crim LR 570 and the judgment of Rose LJ.91 Ibid. at 579.92 RvHasan [2005] UKHL 22......
-
CONSIDERATIONS OF TIME AND SPACE IN DURESS
...the outcome of the English Court of Appeal case of R v Hudson and Taylor, infra n 25, which is discussed at para 20 of the main text. 25 [1971] 2 QB 202. 26 Ibid at 207. 27 Ibid. 28 [1956] MLJ 220; [1956] 1 WLR 965. 29 Supra n 25, at 207. For a similar reliance on Subramaniam, see the South......