What can be inferred from R v. Hudson and Taylor regarding the immediacy of threats?

In R v. Hudson and Taylor, the case demonstrates that the concept of immediacy regarding threats can be interpreted with a degree of flexibility. The court acknowledged that the accused may not have been in a position to escape the threat immediately, and yet, the persistent nature of the threat may still justify a response that falls under duress.

This flexible interpretation allows for consideration of the overall circumstances surrounding the defendant's situation, rather than a strictly rigid requirement for the threat to be immediate or current. Thus, an individual who faces a continuous or ongoing threat may be seen as acting under duress even if the consummation of that threat is not imminent at the moment they choose to act. This nuanced understanding recognizes complexities inherent in real-life situations where immediate danger isn't always present, but fear remains significant nonetheless.