Page ICLR: Appeal Cases/1987/REGINA RESPONDENT AND HOWE APPELLANT REGINA RESPONDENT AND BANNISTER APPELLANT REGINA RESPONDENT AND BURKE APPELLANT [CONJOINED APPEALS] REGINA RESPONDENT AND CLARKSON APPELLANT - [1987] A.C. 417 [1987] A.C. 417 [HOUSE OF LORDS] REGINA RESPONDENT AND HOWE APPELLANT REGINA RESPONDENT AND BAN- NISTER APPELLANT REGINA RESPONDENT AND BURKE APPELLANT [CON- JOINED APPEALS] REGINA RESPONDENT AND CLARKSON APPELLANT 1986 Nov. 17, 18, 19, 20; Lord Hailsham of Marylebone L.C., 1987 Feb. 19 Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Griffiths and Lord Mackay of Clashfern Crime - Homicide - Duress as defence - Murder - Principals in first and second degree - Defence of duress not available to either - Whether conviction for murder of person exercising duress maintainable if person un- der duress convicted of manslaughter only - Whether test of reasonable man applicable in duress Crime - Homicide - Procuring or inciting murder - Person procured alleging duress and accidental killing - Both person procured and procuror charged with murder - Whether, if person procured only guilty of man- slaughter, procuror still guilty of murder In the first appeal, the two appellants with an intended victim were driven by M. to an isolated area where the appellants and M. assaulted the victim and then M. killed him. On a second similar occasion the appellants jointly strangled a victim. On a third occasion, the intended victim escaped. The appellants were tried on in- dictment on two counts of murder and one of conspiracy to murder. Their defence was that they feared for their own lives if they did not do as M. directed. The judge left the issue of duress to the jury in respect of the first murder committed by M. and the conspiracy to murder but not on the count of murder where the victim was strangled by the appellants. He directed the jury that the test of duress was whether a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing the appellants' characteristics would have responded to the threats by taking part in the killing. The appellants were convicted on the three counts. [1987] A.C. 417 Page 418 In the second appeal, the appellants Burke and Clarkson were tried on a charge of murder of a man killed by Burke. Burke's defence was that he had agreed to shoot the victim because of fear that Clarkson would kill him if he did not do so but that the gun went off accidentally. The judge directed the jury that Burke, as the actual killer, could not rely on duress as a defence to the charge of murder but he left the issue of duress to the jury on the issue whether Burke's act was unintentional so that the offence committed amounted to man- slaughter. He further directed the jury that if they found that Burke was guilty of manslaughter, Clarkson could at most be convicted of that offence. Both appellants were convicted of murder.
Page The four appellants appealed against conviction. Their appeals were heard together and