R v Ness [2011]

Court: Crown Court

Facts: Karl Ness ("Applicant") was convicted of multiple serious offences, including murder, conspiracy to murder, attempted murder, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, and robbery. The case began when M, an acquaintance of Ness, learned that his ex-girlfriend was in a relationship with another man. Seeking revenge, M obtained a sawn-off shotgun from Ness, who also supplied a stolen van for M's plan. After M's release from prison, he used the firearm to shoot the new partner of his ex-girlfriend and severely injured her. Following this, M attempted to confront police officers, injuring one before fleeing. The applicant was arrested shortly after and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 40 years.

Issue: Did the applicants (Ness and accomplice A) have a valid defense of duress for their actions, given that they conspired to murder police officers based on M's threats?

Held: The Crown Court convicted Ness and A of their charges, stating that while the defense of duress is applicable in conspiracy to murder, it did not apply in this specific case due to the facts presented. The court emphasized that duress does not excuse actions taken as an accessory to murder, consistent with previous rulings such as in Howe.

💡 Leveluplaw: The ruling raised questions about the application of the duress defense in serious criminal cases. While Howe established that duress is not a valid defense for being an accessory to murder, this distinction has sparked debate regarding its fairness and implications for defendants under pressure from others. The strict application of the law underscores the judiciary's commitment to holding individuals accountable for serious crimes while navigating the complexities of duress in criminal conduct.