D was convicted of murdering his wife, V, and claimed that he was under duress from A to do it. The crown conceded that the defence was open to him (NB this is BEFORE Howe). Judge asked: Did D act because he believed, reasonably, that X had said or done something (i.e. a threat) and did D have good cause to believe that if he did not so act then X would kill or seriously injure him? Secondly, would a man of reasonable firmness, sharing D’s characteristics have done the same? CA said this was correct and dismissed D’s appeal.