R v Abdul Hussain [1999] Crim LR 570
Criminal law – Defence – Duress – Hijacking
Facts
Abdul Hussain and the other defendants, in this case, where Shia Muslims that had fled the Iraqi regime to live in Sudan. During their time in Sudan, they attempted a number of times to travel to Europe but were unsuccessful. Their passports were subsequently confiscated. Soon after, the defendants and their families boarded a plane, equipped with plastic knives and hand grenades. They hijacked the plane, which was originally headed for Jordan and landed at an airport in London. They surrendered after eight hours of negotiation and were subsequently found guilty of hijacking a plane contrary to the Aviation Security Act 1982, section 1.
Issues
The defendants argued that they had feared being deported back to Iraq where they were very likely to be punished and executed, as all were facing death sentences. The issue for the court was whether the defence of duress by threat should have been presented to the jury during the trial.
Decision/Outcome
Their appeals were allowed. The execution of the threat does not have to be instantaneous but rather the threat of death or serious harm had to operate on the mind of the accused at the time of committing the offence. The court held that the defence of duress by threat or circumstances was available to all offences aside from treason, murder or attempted murder. As a result of this case, the court emphasised the need for legislation relating to the defence of duress as the way in which the law had developed through the common law provided uncertainty.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate. The decision in R v Abdul Hussain [1999] Crim LR 570 is correctly stated: the Court of Appeal held that duress by circumstances was available as a defence and that the threat need not be immediately imminent, but must operate on the defendant’s mind at the time of the offence.
One point of clarification: the article states that duress is unavailable for treason, murder, or attempted murder. This reflects the law as it stood at the time and continues to represent the position following the House of Lords’ decision in R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22, which confirmed that duress is not available for murder or attempted murder. Hasan also significantly tightened the general requirements for the defence of duress, imposing a stricter objective test and restricting its availability where a defendant voluntarily associates with criminals. Students should read Abdul Hussain alongside Hasan for a complete picture of the current law.
The article’s observation that the court called for legislative reform remains pertinent: no comprehensive statutory codification of the defence of duress has been enacted since 1999, and the law continues to develop through the common law.
