Compulsion in Tasmania

By James Stevens, Director and Solicitor, Go To Court Lawyers. Last reviewed 20 April 2026.

The defence of compulsion in Tasmania is the defence that is known as duress in other jurisdictions. It is codified in section 20 of the Criminal Code Act 1924. Compulsion provides a defence to some criminal offences in Tasmania where a person can show that they were essentially 'forced' to carry out the acts making up the offence. This legal defence recognises that in certain extreme circumstances, individuals may be coerced into committing criminal acts against their will. Compulsion cannot be relied on as a defence to certain very serious offences, reflecting the law's balance between acknowledging human vulnerability under extreme pressure and maintaining accountability for the most serious crimes. This article outlines the defence of compulsion in Tasmania, its requirements, limitations, and practical applications in criminal proceedings.

What is compulsion in Tasmania?

Legal Definition Under Section 20

Under section 20 of the Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas), a person acts under compulsion if they do an act only because they are being subjected to threats of death or serious harm if they do not comply, by a person who is actually present at the commission of the offence. This statutory definition establishes several key elements that must be present for the defence to apply effectively.

Essential Elements of Compulsion

The defence requires that the threatening person must be physically present during the commission of the criminal act. This immediacy requirement distinguishes compulsion from other forms of coercion and ensures that the accused faced immediate and unavoidable danger. The threats must specifically relate to death or serious bodily harm, setting a high threshold for the defence. Minor threats or economic pressure typically will not satisfy the requirements for compulsion under Tasmanian law.

When is compulsion not a defence?

Excluded Serious Offences

A person cannot rely on compulsion as a defence to a charge of murder, treason, piracy, attempted murder, rape, forcible abduction, robbery offences, causing grievous bodily harm or arson (section 20). These exclusions reflect the legislature's view that certain crimes are so serious that they cannot be justified even under extreme duress. Similar exceptions exist under common law, which holds that the defence of duress cannot be argued in relation to a charge of murder or some forms of treason due to their very serious nature.

Prior Association with Threateners

A person cannot rely on compulsion as a defence if they were a party to an association or conspiracy with the person making the threat that rendered them subject to compulsion. Under the common law, this is known as 'duress foreseen', where a person has voluntarily consorted with criminals and exposed themselves to such compulsion. This principle prevents individuals from deliberately placing themselves in situations where they might be coerced into criminal activity and then claiming the protection of the compulsion defence.

Who bears the onus of proof?

Initial Burden on the Accused

The accused bears the onus of raising the defence of compulsion and adducing evidence to support it. This means the defendant must present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that they acted under compulsion. The evidence must be credible and substantiated by facts that support the claim of coercion.

Prosecution's Burden to Disprove

Once compulsion has been raised, the onus shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting under compulsion. This reversal of the burden of proof reflects the serious nature of the defence and ensures that genuine cases of compulsion are properly considered by the court.

How do you establish compulsion?

Evidentiary Requirements

The Tasmanian Criminal Code Act provides little guidance on how the defence of compulsion is to be applied. However, in other jurisdictions, courts require an accused to call evidence that shows that they were subjected to threats of serious harm if they did not commit the offence. The evidence must demonstrate the immediacy and severity of the threat, as well as the accused's reasonable belief that they had no alternative but to comply.

Three-Part Test

To be acquitted because of compulsion, an accused must show that:

• A threat was made of serious harm or detriment by a person in a position to carry out the threat;
• The accused must have reasonably believed that they could not escape the carrying out of the threat;
• The actions done in response to the threat must have been 'proportionate' to the harm or detriment threatened.

Each element must be established with sufficient evidence to convince the court that the accused's actions were genuinely the result of irresistible compulsion rather than voluntary criminal conduct.

Practical Application in Tasmanian Courts

Judicial Discretion and Assessment

Tasmanian courts exercise careful scrutiny when evaluating compulsion defences, recognising both the legitimate need to protect individuals who genuinely act under duress and the importance of maintaining criminal accountability. Judges must assess the credibility of the accused's testimony, the plausibility of the alleged threats, and whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have acted as the accused did.

Supporting Evidence and Witnesses

Courts typically look for corroborating evidence beyond the accused's testimony when evaluating compulsion claims. This may include witness testimony, physical evidence of threats, medical evidence of fear or trauma, or documentation of the threatening circumstances. The more serious the offence charged, the more compelling the evidence of compulsion generally needs to be.

R v Abusafiah

Landmark Case Analysis

The leading case on the defence of duress is the 1991 New South Wales Supreme Court decision of Abusafiah. In that case, Abusafiah was charged with robbery and claimed that he carried out the offence under duress after being threatened with a gun. He claimed he feared he would be bashed or killed if he did not comply.

Legal Precedent Established

The court held that the relevant test in a case where duress is raised is whether the threat was of a magnitude that the accused could not reasonably have been expected to resist in the circumstances. This objective-subjective test considers both the actual circumstances faced by the accused and what a reasonable person would have done in those same circumstances.

Relationship to Other Criminal Defences

Self-Defence Considerations

The defence of compulsion is related to, and may overlap with, the defence of self-defence in situations where an accused is compelled to commit criminal offences in order to escape more dire consequences. However, self-defence typically involves protecting oneself from immediate physical harm, while compulsion involves being forced to commit crimes against third parties.

Necessity and Emergency Defences

Compulsion may also intersect with defences of necessity or emergency under section 17 of the Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas), particularly where individuals are forced to choose between committing a criminal act and allowing greater harm to occur. The key distinction lies in whether the pressure comes from human threats (compulsion) or natural circumstances (necessity).

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I use compulsion as a defence if I was threatened over the phone?

No,