Marital Coercion - Differences From Duress

Differences From Duress

While the defence of marital coercion has similarities to that of duress, it has significant differences:

• It must be proved that the defendant is the legal wife of the man who coerced her. A mistaken though reasonable belief that she was married will not suffice. Civil partnership does not suffice and a husband cannot claim marital coercion.
• Until 2013 it was thought that the burden of proof lay on the defence to prove marital coercion on the balance of probabilities. (For duress, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove duress beyond reasonable doubt.) However in the trial of Vicky Pryce the trial judge, Mr Justice Sweeney, ruled that the defence had only to show some evidence that the defence applied in order to require the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt, as in duress cases.
• Duress requires a threat to kill or cause serious harm to a person. The Court of Appeal held in R v Shortland that marital coercion need not involve physical force or the threat of force. (However mere loyalty to her husband does not suffice.)
• Section 47 requires the husband to be present when the offence is committed. The defence of duress does not require the presence of the person who issued the threat, provided that the threat is still effective.
• Duress is not a defence to attempted murder, but attempted murder is not excluded by the text of section 47 from the scope of marital coercion.
• Duress is a defence to some forms of treason, but marital coercion is not.