The King v Anna Rowan – a Pseudonym

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning the defence of duress. The respondent, Anna Rowan (a pseudonym), was charged with sexual offences against her daughters, allegedly committed in the presence of her partner, JR. The central dispute revolved around whether the trial judge erred in ruling that there was no factual basis for the respondent to raise the defence of duress, leading to the defence not being put to the jury and her subsequent conviction.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Court of Appeal had implicitly adopted the doctrine of "duress of circumstances" rather than the established common law requirement of a threat to inflict harm if the accused failed to commit the charged acts. Furthermore, the Court had to determine if the Court of Appeal was correct in concluding that the evidence presented was sufficient to raise the defence of duress at common law and under section 322O of the *Crimes Act 1958* (Vic).

The High Court held that the Court of Appeal did not adopt or apply the doctrine of "duress of circumstances." Instead, it applied the accepted understanding in Australia of the form of threat necessary for duress at common law, which derives from the dissenting judgment in *R v Hurley*. The Court found that there was a sufficient evidentiary foundation for the defence of duress to be left to the jury, both at common law and under section 322O of the *Crimes Act 1958* (Vic), based on threats of serious bodily harm by JR. The Court noted that section 322O(2) requires a threat of harm but does not necessitate an express or implied demand to commit the charged act.

The appeal was dismissed. The High Court concluded that there were no "good reasons" for the trial judge not to have provided a direction to the jury concerning the defence of duress, given the evidence presented.