Regina v. Hudson
England and Wales Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
[1971] 2 QB 202, [1971] 2 All E.R. 244 (1971)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Teenagers Elaine Taylor and Linda Hudson (defendants) witnessed Jimmy Wright wound another man. In statements to the police, Hudson and Taylor identified Wright as the assailant. Later, a man with a reputation for violence approached Hudson and threatened to cut her if she testified against Wright in court. Several girls approached Taylor and warned her that Hudson and Taylor would be harmed if they testified against Wright. Hudson and Taylor told each other about the threats they had received. At Wright’s trial, the man who had threatened Hudson was in the courtroom. Frightened, both girls testified that Wright was not the assailant. Wright was acquitted. Hudson and Taylor were charged with perjury for having testified falsely at Wright’s trial. The girls claimed a defense of duress. However, the trial court ruled that duress was not a defense because (1) duress required a present, immediate danger and (2) the girls were in a safe courtroom and in no danger at the time they provided the false testimony. Hudson and Taylor were convicted of perjury. On appeal, Hudson and Taylor argued that they had a valid duress defense because although the threat was not immediate, the threat was present when they testified. The prosecution responded that even if a threat of future harm could be considered duress, the girls still could not assert a duress defense because they never asked the police for protection from the threat.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Widgery, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.