These subjective musings of the accused, stretched to their utmost probative value and most probably beyond, amount to no more than some evidence that the accused was partially driven by subservience to the will of the other male out of fear of that person. On that I adopt the view expressed in R v. Aravena: … A fearful subordination to the orders of others is miles from the kind of conduct required to bring the duress defence into play … subservience is not a substitute for the kind of threat that would be required to lend an air of reality to a duress defence in these circumstances. (Supra at para. 89)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.