I find that a properly instructed jury could not come to any other conclusion than that a reasonable person similarly situated and with the same personal characteristics and experiences as the accused had a safe avenue of escape. Put differently, there is an “absence of any realistic basis upon which a jury could have a doubt as to whether [the accused] had a safe avenue of escape” (See: R v. Sheridan, infra at para. 10). In my view, there is no air of reality to the no safe avenue of escape element and the defence of duress fails on that ground as well.
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.