idn't give false evidence. The girls therefore gave wrong evidence and were charged with perjury. They raised the defence of duress but were convicted because at the time they weren't in threat of immediate violence, and thus had the chance to report this confrontation to the police. The risk of injury had not disappeared once the threat was reported. The conviction was eventually quashed. Another case relevant to the threat is if the D voluntarily commits an offence to escape the potential outcome of the threat. The defence will not be available. In the COLE (1991), Cole had borrowed money from moneylenders, the lender threatened him and hit him with a baseball bat. They also threatened to do the same to his girlfriend and child, if he failed to repay the money. Thus D carried out 2 robberies, claiming the defence of duress. The judged said that Duress was "only available where the threats were directed at the commission of the particular offence charged". The conviction was upheld. The threat to D does not have to be 'immediate' but 'imminent'.
             D will be expected to take advantage of any opportunity to escape, if he fails to take the chance the defence will fail as shown in the case of GILL (1963), the D under the threat of violence, was convicted of stealing his employer's lorry. Because he had gone alone to steal the lorry and he had time to raise the alarm, he could not use the defence of duress because he could have avoided the dilemma. Unless D can pre-offer some explanation for it, as in the case of POMMEL (1995). Whereby D was convicted of possession of a firearm without a certificate (under Firearms ACT 1968). He explained that that he had taken the gun from a friend the previous night, as his friend had intention to shoot someone. He had planned to give the gun to the police but the arrest had prevented him from doing so. On appeal the defence of circumstances was allowed, as ...