Defence of Compulsion
Compulsions refer to the forcible inducement to an act or omission to do something.
It also means the act of compelling; the state of being compelled; an uncontrollable inclination to do something; duress.
Compulsion can take forms other than physical force. The courts have been indisposed to admit compulsion as a defence for any crime committed through yielding to it.
In Uganda, it is provided for under section 14 of the PCA where a person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person was compelled to commit an offence due to threat of killing him or causing grievous harm. 
For one to rely on the defence of compulsion, the following conditions must exist.
- A threat must be one of force upon a person.
- The offence is committed by two or more offenders.
- The threat must be one to kill or to do grievous bodily harm.
A-G v Whelan [1933] IEHC 1
the appellant had been convicted of handling stolen goods. The jury had made a finding of fact that he had acted under threat of death or immediate personal violence.
The trial judge held that this finding lead in law to a conviction with the issue of duress being a matter for sentencing.
The appellant appealed contending that the finding of the jury should have resulted in an acquittal. The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed holding that Duress is a complete defence and not simply a matter of mitigation in a sentence.
Murnaghan J:
"It seems to us that threat of immediate death or serious personal violence so great as to overbear the ordinary power of human resistance should be accepted as a justification for acts which would otherwise be criminal.
The application of this general rule must however be subject to certain limitations.
The commission of murder is a crime so heinous that murder should not be committed even for the price of life and in such a case the strongest duress would not be any justification.
We have not to determine what class of crime other than murder should be placed in the same category. We are, however, satisfied that any such consideration does not apply in the case of receiving.
Where the excuse of duress is applicable;
- It must further be clearly shown that the overpowering of the will was operative at the time the crime was actually committed, and, if there were reasonable opportunities for the will to reassert itself, no justification can be found in antecedent threats."
- The threat must continue all the time the offence is being committed.
- The threat must be so great as to overbear the ordinary powers of human resistance.
See the case of R v Graham [1982] 1 WLR 294.
R v Flatt [1996] Crim LR 576
The appellant was a drug addict who became indebted to his supplier. According to the appellant, his supplier had told him to look after some drugs otherwise he would shoot his mother, grandmother and girlfriend. He was convicted of possession with intent to supply.
He appealed contending that in assessing whether a person of reasonable firmness would have acted as he did, his characteristic of being a drug addict should have been taken into account.
The appeal was dismissed and his conviction was upheld holding that Drug addiction was a self-induced condition, not a characteristic.
The threat must not be to the property of the accused.
The accused must have had no opportunity of escaping otherwise he or she voluntarily joined the criminal will render the defence inapplicable.
Mnduyo Mkanyoro v R [1962] 1 EA 110.
The appellant had taken Mau Mau oath for administering unlawful acts and they had taken the oath for fear of being killed if they did not take it.
The appellant had a chance of reporting to the police but since he failed, the defence was not available to him.
The offence is not available in the following circumstances;
- Where crimes committed are that of murder, attempted murder or for an accessory to murder, treason.
- Where the defendant voluntarily, with knowledge of its nature, joined a violent criminal gang.
- Where the defendant voluntarily joined a terrorist organization.
- Where the defendant became indebted to drug dealers.
- Where the defendant could reasonably have taken evasive action.
Compulsion by Husband
Section 17 of the PCA where a woman proves coercion of a husband in committing an offence in his presence other than the offence of murder and treason, she can successfully raise the defence.
Points to note;
An offence committed in the presence of the husband.
The husband coerces the wife to commit the offence.
The Act does not define the word "presence” as used in the section and its not clear whether the threat must be that of physical injury e.g. the Husband uses his wife to enter into a house for the purposes of stealing by threatening to leave her if she does not comply with his wishes.
The husband remains outside keeping watch.
The wife would seem to have a defence of compulsion by husband.
Note that coercion is defined as any inducement likely to influence any reasonable woman.
The test of a reasonable woman must be applied.