How does AG v. Whelan (1934) relate to the relationship between duress and criminal liability?

In the case of AG v. Whelan (1934), the court addressed the nuances of how duress interacts with criminal liability, particularly in the context of serious crimes. The ruling emphasized that while duress may be a factor in influencing an individual's behavior, it cannot serve as a justification for committing serious offenses, such as murder or serious violence.

The reasoning behind this is rooted in the legal principle that certain fundamental values, particularly the protection of human life, cannot be compromised even under severe pressure or threats. Consequently, the law draws a firm line, indicating that while duress can be a factor that affects the culpability of an accused individual, it does not absolve one of responsibility for more heinous actions.

This perspective is crucial in understanding the limitations of duress as a legal defense. It reinforces the idea that while individuals may face coercive circumstances, there must ultimately be boundaries that delineate acceptable reasons for committing crimes, particularly those of a more serious nature. This aligns with a broader legal philosophy that seeks to maintain a balance between individual culpability and the protection of societal values.