Facts: The defendant was threatened with violence unless he helped transport drugs in a few days' time.

Held: He was told he could not rely on duress as a defence because he could have escaped from the threat by seeking assistance from the police or moving to relatives in Scotland.

Facts: Howe and Bailey both aged 19 and Bannister aged 20, were acting under orders of Murray aged 35. The charges related to two murders and one conspiracy to murder. The first murder related to a 17 year old male victim, Elgar. Murray had driven them all to a public lavatory. Elgar was naked and sobbing and was subjected to torture and compelled to undergo sexual perversions. Howe and Bannister took part in kicking and punching Elgar and were told they would succumb to similar treatment if they did not do as Murray ordered. Bailey strangled Elgar resulting in his death. The second killing took place the following night at the same location on a 19 year old male Pollitt. Murray had ordered Howe and Bannister to strangle him and they complied. The third charge related to a similar incident, however, the intended victim managed to escape.

Held: The defence of duress is not available for murder.

Held: The House of Lords held it was appropriate to halt a trial for abuse of process where undercover officers had approached a person whom they had grounds for suspecting to be involved in drugs and given him cheap cigarettes, before asking him for dryugs.

• However, their Lordships added that it would not be necessary to halt a trial for abuse of process where there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the defendant was a drug dealer and the officers had merely given the defendant an opportunity to commit the offence.

Facts: Barry Quayle and two others were suffering various illnesses which caused them severe pain. They were arrested after it was found that they were growing cannabis for personal use. They were charged with possession of cannabais contrarty to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The defendants raised the defence of necessity: this was based on the argument that the use of cannabis was necessary to avoid serious injury and pain.

Held: Neither the defence of necessity nor duress of circumstances was applicable in such circumstances.

• Mance LJ: '... the defendant was taking a deliberately considered course of conduct over a subtantial period of time, involving continuous or regular breaches of the law. In each case, the defendant was not the immediate sufferer and had every opportunity to reflect and to desist'.

Facts: The two appellants were inmates in Parkhurst Prison. They learnt that the Home Secretary had increased their original tariffs. They claimed that this made them suicidal and they broke out of prison to avoid the threat of death which these circumstances had given rise.

Held: Their appeals were dismissed and convictions upheld.

Facts: The defendant claimed that he would not have committed the offence of dealing with counterfeit currency had he not suffered constant persuasion and insistence of an undercover police officer.

Held: The House of Lords rejected an argument that there was a defence of entrapment. However, their lordships expressed disapproval of using police officers as agent provocateurs.

Facts: The appellant had been convicted for importing drugs. He had done so because he had received threats of serious violence against him and his family if he did not comply. There were also threats to reveal his homosexual activities to his wife. He also received financial rewards for his action. The trial judge refused to allow the defence of duress to be put before the jury.

Held: The appeal was allowed. Threats to reveal his homosexuality alone would be insufficient to find the defence but could be taken into account when coupled with threats of serious personal violence.