# data[].attributes.body
Provocation is when a person commits a criminal act because they were provoked to, due to the events leading up to the act. This makes them less morally culpable which can help lessen their sentence but they will not be acquitted. This type of defence can only be applies to murder.

# data[].attributes.body
The Necessity defence applies when an individual commits a criminal act during an emergency situation. The criteria you must meet for the defence to be successful is:
"(1) the defendant acted to avoid a significant risk of harm;
(2) no adequate lawful means could have been used to escape the harm; and
(3) the harm avoided was greater than that caused by breaking the law."

# data[].attributes.body
The Duress defence is when an individual commits an act due to these three requirments:
1. There is an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the actor
2. The individual has reasonable fear that someone will carry out the threat
3. The individual has no reasonable opportunity to escape, unless they commit an unlawful act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page contains a form to search the Supreme Court of Canada case information database. You can search by the SCC 5-digit case number, by name or word in the style of cause, or by file number from the appeal court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is a case about a woman who hired a hit man to have her husband killed after years of severe domestic violence. She was caught by the RCMP and charged for trying to kill her husband. At trial, she tried to use a rare defence called "duress" to justify her crime. She and her lawyer argued that because she was abused for so long and the police and other authorities would not help her, she felt she had no other way to protect herself and her daughter. The lower courts found that she was under "duress" and not guilty.

This is the case of R. v. Ryan. ¹ It went to Canada's highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court disagreed with the decisions of the lower courts and ruled that this defence was not available in her situation. However, the court stayed (stopped) the criminal proceedings because of everything she had beenthrough. This article will discuss this case and what it means for women in similar situations of domestic violence.

Facts of the Case

Nicole Doucet suffered what the Court called, a 15-year "reign of terror,""Mr. Ryan often told her that he would kill her and her daughter if she ever tried to leave him, and that he would 'burn the fucking house down' while she and her daughter were inside." ² at the hands of her husband, Michael Ryan. The trial judge accepted Ms. Doucet's evidence at trial that the relationship and the events she had described relating to that relationship were true. She described living in constant fear because of his physical, psychological, emotional and sexual abuse. As the Court recounts, ³ Ms. Doucet contacted the police at least 9 times and Victim Services at least 11 times, but they did not help her. In the end, she hired a hit man to kill her husband. The person she hired to kill her husband was an undercover R.C.M.P officer. Ms. Doucet was charged with the crime of "counselling to commit murder".

What is "duress"?

This case is about the legal defence of "duress." Traditionally, the defence of duress means that you are forced to do something illegal because someone is threatening to hurt you or someone else if you do not do what they say. For example, if someone threatened to hurt your child unless you agreed to steal a car for them - even though stealing is illegal, an argument could be made that you were under "duress" and should not be held criminally responsible because you had no other option to protect your child. Duress is similar, but not the same as "self-defence." A situation of self-defence would be if someone attacked you and you assaulted or injured the attacker while you were defending yourself. Even though assaulting another person is illegal, an argument could be made that you had no other choice but to use force to protect yourself.

In the Ryan case, Ms. Doucet did not rely on the argument of self-defence, but tried to use the defence of duress instead. She argued that because of the extent of the abuse and threats she experienced from her partner, and because the police had not helped her, she was under duress. In other words, she argued that she had no other choice but to do what she did to protect herself and her daughter.

What did the lower courts decide?

Both the Nova Scotia Supreme Court and the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal accepted the defence of duress, and she was acquitted (found not guilty). The lower courts came to their decision to accept Ms. Doucet's claim of the defence of duress because they focused on the need for this defence to be flexible. The lower courts also focused on the need for legal defences to recognize the reality of those who experience spousal abuse. However, the Crown appealed her acquittal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

What did the Supreme Court of Canada decide?

The Supreme Court of Canada found the lower courts' decisions were incorrect; they decided the defence of duress was not available to Ms. Doucet. The Supreme Court stated that the defence of duress is only available to someone who commits a crime because someone else threatened her in order to force her to commit the crime. For example, if someone else threatened to hurt Ms. Doucet unless she killed her husband, she could use the defence of duress, according to the Supreme Court's reasons. The purpose of the threat must be to make the person commit the crime.

However, because there was no one else forcing Ms. Doucet to have her husband killed, and her husband was not threatening her life in order to force her to try and have him killed, the Supreme Court found that she could not claim duress. The Supreme Court interpreted the defence of duress in a narrow and technical way. It is a defence that would only apply in a few situations. The Court stated that if an accused is threatened without pressure to commit a crime, the only defence is self-defence. But the Court did not say whether or not Ms. Doucet could have used the argument of self- defence in this case. In the end, by finding that the defence of duress could not be used in this situation, this case produces a confusing result: if Ms. Doucet had attempted to murder her husband herself, she might have had a defence of self-defence, but because she attempted to hire someone to do it for her, she is unable to access any defence.

One of the most important features of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Ryan was the fact the Court did not do a contextual analysis (an approach that considers the background factors of an event) of the defence of duress. Unlike the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal's decision, the Supreme Court of Canada did not interpret the law of duress in a flexible manner. The Court did not attempt to relax the strict elements of the defence of duress to include the reality of those experiencing spousal abuse. Its entire discussion of the defence of duress is more abstract, and the Court did not address the potential for the law to have an unequal effect on those who experience intimate partner violence.

What does this case mean for survivors of domestic violence?

The analysis of the law of legal defences in Ryan is important because of the high rate of domestic violence. In Canada, a woman is killed by her current or former male intimate partner every six days, and sometimes children and other family members are killed. The finding of the Supreme Court of Canada that the defence of duress does not apply to women in Ms. Doucet's situation, may have the following indirect and/or direct implications or consequences for women survivors of domestic violence:

Under reporting/Barriers to leaving abusive relationships

Those who experience domestic violence already face many barriers to reporting their violence because of trauma, shame, self-blame, commitment to marriage, fear for their children, and confusion regarding legal rights or access to justice. In this case, the police failed to respond to Ms. Doucet's numerous pleas for help because they viewed domestic violence as a "civil (private) matter".

The Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged that this was wrong but did not provide any other legal solutions or look at the law in a way that takes into account the difficulties for many women in abusive situations. However, this decision may make women feel they have no legal help and contribute to more women staying in abusive situations. It may reinforce fear of reporting domestic violence to formal agencies, such as the police, and contribute to creating more barriers for women to access justice.

Not enough legal protection

In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada decided to stop the legal proceedings, preventing the case from going back to trial. This means that although the Court found that Ms. Doucet did not have a defence for her actions, the legal process is stopped. This is a very rare and extreme outcome. In ordering the stay of proceedings, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the severity of Ms. Doucet's specific circumstances. For example, the Court noted that the abuse she suffered and the length of her criminal proceedings had a large, negative effect on Ms. Doucet. The Court also commented on the fact the police appeared more willing to protect Mr. Ryan than to respond to Ms. Doucet's requests for help. While the result of this case was positive for Ms. Doucet, the Court does not address broader access to justice issues, such as the availability of legal defences for abused women generally. By rejecting Ms. Doucet's claim of duress, and failing to address whether other legal defences might be available to women in similar situations of domestic violence, the Supreme Court of Canada has left survivors of intimate partner violence with limited options. Overall, the Court seemed to miss an opportunity to modify the traditional limits of this legal defence to incorporate the experiences of abused women.

Endnotes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Duress and Domestic Violence, R v. Ryan 2013, Supreme Court Decides Not a Case of Duress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is a case about a woman who hired a hit man to have her husband killed after years of severe domestic violence. She was caught by the RCMP and charged for trying to kill her husband. At trial, she tried to use a rare defence called "duress" to justify her crime.

# data[].attributes.body
Michael John Cairney, shot and killed Stephen Ferguson with a shotgun, and was charged with second degree murder. Cairney used the defence provocation saying he "saw red" and just shot due to being in an argument with Ferguson.

# data[].attributes.body
The accuses were charged with importing cannabis into Canada and with possession for the purpose of trafficking and used the defence of necessity at trail. They claim that they did not plan to import into Canada as their destination was Alaska but that, following a series of mechanical problems they decided (for the safety of the ship and crew) to look for safety on Canadian shoreline and repair. They found cover by a cove. The captain fearing he was going to capsize, ordered the men to offload the cargo. That's when the police arrived.

# data[].attributes.body
Nicole Doucet hired a hit man to have her husband killed after years of severe domestic violence. She was caught by the RCMP and charged for trying to kill her husband. She used the Duress defence at trial. She feared for the life of herself and her daughter and after years of no help from authorities she felt she had no other choice.

# data[].attributes.body
Nicole Doucet was originally not guilty but then was found Guilty by the Supreme Court of Canada. Ms.Doucets defence was that she had no other choice but to have her husband killed to protect herself and her daughter. Especially after authorities wouldn't help her. However, the Supreme Court argued that although she was under threat and she was not forced to commit the act of killing her husband. If she was threaten by someone else that she had to kill her husband otherwise they would kill her; that would have been a valid excuse. Or if the accused had killed her husband herself using the defence 'self-defence'. Due to no one forcing her by life threatening circumstances to specifically kill her husband she was found guilty.

# data[].attributes.body
Michael John Cairney was originally successful and was acquitted to manslaughter, however it was appealed and he was convicted for second degree murder. Therefore the defence was NOT successful for two main reasons.
1) The defence argued that he saw red and just shot but after their argument while Cairney was holding a gun to Ferguson's chest, Ferguson left the apartment. Cairney followed him into the hallway and right before shooting him had several moments to think due to answering Fergusons question If "he was going to do something stupid" and Cairney said "yes". This shows that Cairneys mind was processing his actions and does not fully lack a Mens Rea
2) Cairney initiated the argument, he took the gun and confronted Ferguson's. The crown argued that due to Ferguson's abusive past with Cairneys cousin and Cairney being aware and witness to it he would have known and been prepared for Ferguson's rude reaction to not caring about Cairneys concerns. A "reasonable man" would have anticipated and acted differently.

# data[].attributes.headline
Analysis: "Appeal dismissed, new trial ordered"

# data[].attributes.subject
Analysis: "Appeal dismissed, new trial ordered"

# data[].attributes.body
Although the case is not over Perka has already been successful so far due to being able to meet all three requirements of the necessity defence.
1) By docking in Canada they were doing it for the safety of their passengers during an emergency. They had no choice or everyone could have died.
2) They had no intentions to bring the Cargo into Canada, they are on international waters they didn't have any other option to pull over for safety. Their only option was to find safety on Canadian shores.
3) If they didn't take the cargo into Canada and take the cargo off the ship while trying to fix it the ship could have capsized and killed everyone on board. Drug possession and POSSIBLE trafficking is not worth then the death of multiple people. (No value on human life)

# data[].attributes.body
Thus, Michael John Cairney was not able to meet the defence requirements. His actions did not show someone provoked to an extent to having no idea what their doing. He could not prove the events leading up to the act were completely surprising leading him into a rage, with no time to think. This defence also includes the requirement of the "reasonable man" how they would react in the given situation and Cairney did not fit that criteria. This is a valid excuse defence and if he was successful he would have been given a partial acquittal which means he would have only faced manslaughter.

# data[].attributes.body
Perka was originally successful in the case and was able to meet all the requirements of the necessity defence (which is a valid excuse).
1. They were avoiding harm
2. They had to break the law avoid harm
3. Bringing drugs into Canada isn't as bad as the death of everyone on board
Therefore the accuses were fully acquitted but the verdict was appealed so the final outcome is to be determined.

# data[].attributes.body
Therefore, Nicole Doucet was unable to meet the requirements of the case. Yes, she was at threat and needed to save herself. But their was other options then killing her husband and no one was forcing her own life for her to do it which is one of the main criteria needed. This is a very controversial case and personally in my opinion I see the accused reasoning side of the case more then the reasoning from the Supreme Court. This is a valid excuse defence and if she was successful she would have been fully acquitted.