What is a necessary factor for the defense of duress as established in R v. Hudson and Taylor (1971)?

The defense of duress, as established in the case of R v. Hudson and Taylor (1971), requires that the threat made against the individual be immediate and unavoidable. This element of immediacy ensures that the person claiming duress was under a genuine and pressing threat at the time of committing the offense.

In this context, immediacy signifies that the threat must be such that it leaves no reasonable alternative for the defendant but to comply with the coercive demands. If there is a significant lapse of time or if the threat is not perceived as immediate, the claim of duress becomes weaker, as the individual could potentially seek help or choose not to engage in unlawful conduct.

Other factors mentioned in the choices, such as the risk of legal consequences or the existence of prior threats, do not directly reflect the core requirement for duress as defined in this case. While having a witness to the threat might provide support for a claim, it is not a necessary element of the defense itself. What is paramount in this legal context is that the threat must be immediate to justify the actions taken under duress.