R v Abdul-Hussain [1999]

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: Abdul Hussain and his co-defendants, Shia Muslims, fled the Iraqi regime and took refuge in Sudan. After several failed attempts to reach Europe, their passports were confiscated. They then hijacked a plane equipped with plastic knives and imitation hand grenades, diverting it to London where they surrendered after an eight-hour negotiation. They were convicted of hijacking under section 1 of the Aviation Security Act 1982.

Issues: The defendants claimed that they feared deportation to Iraq, where they faced certain execution. The legal issue was whether the defense of duress by threat should have been available to them, considering their situation.

Held : The appeals were allowed. The court ruled that the defense of duress by threat or circumstances applied to all offences except for murder, attempted murder, or treason. It determined that while the threat did not need to be immediate, it had to be significant enough to impact the defendant’s mindset at the time of the offense. The court highlighted the need for legislative clarification on duress due to the ambiguities within common law.

Key Judicial Statements: Rose LJ outlined that the concept of duress includes factors like the time elapsed between the threat and the defendant’s actions, as well as the nature and identity of those causing the peril, and any opportunities available to the defendant to avoid it.