Case name + citation: R v Ryan [2013] 3 SCC Relevant facts: Ryan was in an abusive relationship with her husband, who repeatedly threatened her and her daughter with death and bodily harm [p4]. Due to the threats, Ryan believed that her husband would ultimately kill her and her daughter, if she did not take action to kill him first [p4]. Ryan hired multiple hit men, the final being an undercover RCMP officer who agreed to help [p5]. Ryan was charged under s. 464(a) of the Criminal Code with counselling the commission of an offense [p5]. However, Ryan stated her husband threatened her on multiple occasions and that killing her husband was the only rational solution [4]. Ryan used the defense of duress to excuse her actions [pg2]. Lower court decision(s): …show more content…
The courts have already accepted that Ryan’s circumstances were true and founded; however, it was the question of establishing whether or not she was able to use duress as a defense [p10]. The Crown’s arguments were founded on the belief that “duress only applies when an accused is forced by threat to commit an offense against a third party”, which the Supreme Court agreed with [p10]. The Supreme Court further clarified in order for Ryan to be able to use duress as a defense she would have had to commit the offense while being compelled to commit it [pg2, p29]. Ultimately in Ryan’s case she could not rely on self-defense because she did not meet force with force or duress where she would have had to be compelled, she was under threat without compulsion [p30]. Ryan out of free will hired a hit man to kill her husband; since neither her husband nor any other party, compelled her to kill him, she cannot use duress as a defense [pg2]. The Supreme Court also issued a stay of proceedings in