[2007] EWCA Crim 1251

Although there might be grounds for criticising a principle of law that did not afford a 13-year-old boy any defence to a charge of murder on the ground that he was complying with his father's instruction, which he was too frightened to refuse to obey, the law held that a 13-year-old boy was responsible for his actions. The rule that duress provided no defence to a charge of murder applied however susceptible a defendant might be to duress.

CA (Crim Div) (Lord Philips LCJ, Henriques J, Teare J)

15/05/2007