Case Outcome: Defence only available if the D commits an offence of a type specified/nominated by the person making the threat - Cole 1994.

Case Outcome: Duress of circumstances - Willer (1986)

Case Outcome: Duress of circumstances - Conway (1988)

Case Outcome: Duress of circumstances - Pommell (1995)

Case Outcome: There must be a threat of death or serious injury - Hudson & Taylor (1971)

Case Outcome: There must be a threat of death or serious injury - Lynch v DPP (1975)

Case Facts: There must be a threat of death or serious injury - Valderamma-Vega (1985)

Case Outcome: There must be a threat of death or serious injury - Valderamma-Vega (1985)

Case Outcome: The threat may be made to the defendant or to others - Ortiz (1986)

Case Outcome: The threat may be made to the defendant or to others - Wright (2000)

Case Outcome: The threat may be made to the defendant or to others - Shayler (2001)

Case Outcome: The threat must be immediate - Hudson v Taylor (1971)

Case Facts: The threat may be made to the defendant or to others - Abdul-Hussain (1999)

Case Facts: The threat may be made to the defendant or to others - Abdul-Hussain (1999)

Case Outcome: The threat may be made to the defendant or to others - Hasan (2005)

Case Facts: The defence not allowed if the defendant had an opportunity to escape or seek police protection - Gill (1963)

Case Outcome: The defence not allowed if the defendant had an opportunity to escape or seek police protection - Gill (1963)

Case Outcome: The defence not allowed if the defendant had an opportunity to escape or seek police protection - Pommell (1995)

Case Outcome: The defence not allowed if the defendant had an opportunity to escape or seek police protection - Hudson & Taylor (1971)

Case Facts: The defence isn't available where a defendant voluntarily engages in criminal association - Sharp (1987)

Case Outcome: The defence isn't available where a defendant voluntarily engages in criminal association - Sharp (1987)

Case Outcome: The defence isn't available where a defendant voluntarily engages in criminal association - Shepherd (1987)

Case Facts: Associating with people with a propensity for violence might mean the unavailability of the defence - Ali (Mumtaz) (1995)

Case Outcome: Associating with people with a propensity for violence might mean the unavailability of the defence - Ali (Mumtaz) (1995)

Case Outcome: Associating with people with a propensity for violence might mean the unavailability of the defence - Heath (2000) and Harmer (2002)

Case Outcome: Associating with people with a propensity for violence might mean the unavailability of the defence - Hasan (2005)

Case Facts: Associating with people with a propensity for violence might mean the unavailability of the defence - Ali (2008)

Case Outcome: Associating with people with a propensity for violence might mean the unavailability of the defence - Ali (2008)

Case Facts: The two part test to determine whether the defendant had acted under duress or not - Graham (1982)

Case Outcome: The two part test to determine whether the defendant had acted under duress or not - Graham (1982)

Case Outcome: Subjective Part of the Graham Tests; "reasonable belief" - Safi & Others (2004)

Case Outcome: Objective Part of the Graham Tests; "same characteristics" - Bowen (1996)

Case Outcome: Duress unavailable for murder - Howe (1987)

Case Outcome: Duress unavailable for murder - Wilson (2007)

Case Outcome: Duress unavailable for attempted murder - Gotts (1992)