Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland v Lynch [1975] UKHL 5; [1975] AC 653
Crime – Duress – Murder – Aiding and Abetting – Defence of Duress
Facts:
The defendant was charged with murder as an aider and abettor, described as a principal in the second degree. He drove armed members of the IRA to and from the scene where they shot and killed a police officer in Belfast. At trial, he claimed that he believed he would be shot if he disobeyed the gunman’s instructions. The alleged threat was implicit rather than express. The trial judge withdrew duress from the jury on the basis that it was unavailable on a murder charge. The defendant was convicted, and his appeal to the Northern Ireland Court of Criminal Appeal failed.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issues:
The issue was whether duress was available to a person charged with murder as an aider and abettor. The House also considered whether unwilling participation prevented a finding of intentional assistance.
Held:
By three to two, the House of Lords allowed the appeal. Duress was available as a possible defence to Lynch as an aider and abettor to murder. The majority confined its decision to that form of participation, leaving the position of a person who actually killed for another case.
Duress did not mean that the defendant lacked the intention to assist. Lord Morris explained that knowingly and intentionally driving the car in execution of a murderous plan could amount to aiding and abetting even if the driver regretted the plan or was horrified by it. If his intention and conduct arose from sufficiently compelling duress, that could nevertheless provide a defence.
The House did not decide that Lynch had acted under duress. Once the defence was properly raised, the prosecution bore the burden of disproving it. Questions about the threats, their continuing effect and opportunities to escape still required consideration. His conviction was quashed and the case remitted to the Northern Ireland Court of Criminal Appeal for a new trial.
