The onus of establishing duress as a mitigating factor in sentencing rests on the offender, and where the offender elects not to give sworn evidence in support of a duress claim, the sentencing judge is entitled to decline to draw an inference of duress from other material. Hearsay evidence of conversations not captured by surveillance, even if accepted as true, may be incapable of supporting an inference of duress. Significant differences in the roles and culpability of co-offenders, including a managerial versus junior role and differences in age, justify substantial differences in sentence without offending the parity principle.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.