This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

R v Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 04/01/2024 07:02

Judgement for the case R v Gotts

KEY POINTS

  • Coerced into attempting murder can warrant the use of duress as a defense. The test for the validity of the duress defense under common law permits judge-made law, as opposed to statutory law, which is legislation created by the legislature.

  • The law should offer a defense to individuals who had attempted murder under duress, keeping the seriousness of the crime and its potential implications for public safety.

  • The legal system should emphasize the outcome (murder or attempted murder) and the defendant's intent when determining the applicability of the duress as a defense. 

FACTS

  • The defendant was charged with attempted murder. He had attempted to kill his wife under duress from a third party, who had threatened him with violence if he did not carry out the act. The primary legal issue in this case was whether the defense of duress could be extended to cover attempted murder.

  • The case involved a complex legal analysis of the duress defense in the context of attempted murder and whether the courts should recognize it. The House of Lords had to decide whether duress could apply to attempted murder, as it had traditionally been excluded for murder and treason.

  • The case raised questions about the legal doctrine of duress, criminal liability, and the scope of the defense in the context of the offense of attempted murder.

  • The House of Lords had to clarify whether the defense of duress applied to attempted murder under English law, and they decided based on their interpretation of the law and legal principles.

JUDGEMENT

  • The House of Lords ruled that the defense of duress was unavailable for attempted murder. They held that duress was generally available as a defense but could not be used in cases of murder and treason.

  • Attempted murder was considered an independent and serious crime, and the defense of duress did not apply. As a result, the conviction for attempted murder in this specific case was quashed, but the House of Lords did not order a new trial.

COMMENTARY

  • This case raises essential questions about applying the duress defense in cases of attempted murder and the broader principles of criminal liability under English common law.

  • The central argument put forth is that being coerced into attempting murder should warrant the use of duress as a defense. This perspective emphasizes the importance of considering the circumstances in which an individual finds themselves when engaging in a criminal act. In this case, the defendant had been threatened with violence if he did not attempt to kill his wife, and this threat served as the basis for his defense.

  • The distinction between judge-made law and statutory law is significant in this context. Based on common law principles, the duress defense is shaped and interpreted by the judiciary rather than being explicitly defined in statute. This underscores the flexibility of the common law system to adapt to evolving legal interpretations and societal values.

  • The legal system should prioritize the outcome (murder or attempted murder) and the defendant's intent when determining the applicability of duress as a defense. This approach underscores the importance of considering both the action's result and the defendant's mindset when evaluating the legality of their actions.

  • The House of Lords' ruling reflects a particular interpretation of the law. They decided that duress should not apply to attempted murder, distinguishing between the more serious crimes of murder and treason and other offenses. The decision highlights the complexity of balancing legal principles, individual circumstances, and public safety concerns when determining the applicability of defenses in criminal cases.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

  • Defendant attempted to murder Victim and was not allowed to rely upon duress by the judge.

  • Upon appeal the HL said that, in the absence of statute or common law guidance they would decide whether or not to allow duress as a defence to attempted murder on a policy basis.

  • By a majority of 3-2 HL said it was NOT a defence to attempted murder, because the law regarded the sanctity of human life and its protection as being of paramount importance.

Lord Jauncey

  • Says there is no logic in allowing duress to cover attempted murder but not murder: suppose A stabs B intending to kill him but B is found and saved, as opposed to where A stabs B intending mere GBH (Grievous Bodily Harm) but inflicts an identical wound and B is not saved.

  • Such a distinction as to the application of the defence would leave too much to moral luck.

A man who shoots and misses by hair’s breadth is no less culpable than a man who shoots and kills.

Lord Keith (dissenting)

  • Says that:

    1. Murder is a crime judged in a category of its own (as demonstrated by the mandatory life sentence), separate from attempted murder.

    2. The argument that Defendant who shoots and kill and Defendant who shoots and merely injures are equally morally wrong is a bad argument, since neither person, in a case of duress, has an “evil” intent: they are simply being forced to do it

  • (This overlooks the principle that someone should be willing to sacrifice himself rather than take another’s life, and where one breaches this principle it is appropriate that he be punished. Even in cases of mere “attempted” murder, Defendant is breaching the principle, despite failing to this end- principle can be derived from Howe).

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on R v Gotts

Criminal Law Notes
1,072 total pages
662 purchased

Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started

Related Product Samples

These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

Criminal LawDefences Notes (32 pages)
Criminal LawDefences Short Notes (28 pages)
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Criminal Law Notes
1,072 total pages
662 purchased

Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...