R v Sharp (David Bruce) [1987] QB 853
Criminal law – Duress – Armed robbery
Facts
Sharp joined a gang of robbers that he knew possessed and used firearms. He participated in a robbery of a post office, in which the leader of the gang shot and killed a victim using a sawn-off shotgun. Sharp claimed in his trial that he was simply a ‘bagman’ and thought the guns had been loaded with blanks. Sharp also attempted to employ the defence of duress as he wished to pull out of the robbery but had continued his participation as the gang leader had pointed a gun at his head and threatened to shoot him if he did not continue. The trial judge rejected this submission and Sharp was convicted of manslaughter and was sentenced to a long imprisonment sentence.
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
Sharp challenged the judge’s legal ruling that duress was unavailable to a person who voluntarily joined such a gang with the necessary knowledge. He argued that the common law contained no such exception and that introducing one was a matter for Parliament.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that duress was unavailable where a person voluntarily joined a criminal gang knowing its nature and knowing that it might pressure him to commit an offence, and remained an active member when put under that pressure. Membership alone was not the whole test. The earlier Hounslow incident, when Hussey fired a loaded gun during the gang’s escape, was important to Sharp’s knowledge of the people with whom he was associating. As a result of this, it was held that the trial judge was correct to reject the appellant’s submission and therefore Sharp’s appeal was dismissed.
Sources: Original Court of Appeal transcript; Lord Lane CJ’s ruling at page 861 reproduced in R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22.
