This article explores various legislative Acts and amendments to them. Of particular interest to the field of family violence is the section "Compulsion by Threats and Duress of Circumstances". This discusses the relationship between the statutory defence of 'compulsion by threats', under s24 of the Crimes Act (1961), and the common law defence of 'duress of circumstance'. This is when an individual who is being abused by a partner feels compelled to commit a crime because they are being threatened by their abusive partner. However, when the individual commits the crime, the abusive partner is not present. With reference to battered women's syndrome, there is a discussion of the Court of Appeal's interpretation of s24. The domestic violence related case example R v. Richards (1998) is employed to explore the Court of Appeal's requirement of actual presence. Various other cases are also drawn on as evidence of the Court's ability to be ungenerous and narrow in it interpretation of s24 in relation to situations involving domestic violence. 'Duress of circumstances' and the common law are discussed largely with reference to the English Court of Appeal. The New Zealand Court of Appeal's exclusionary approach to the defence is discussed and questioned, as well as the defence applied in New Zealand. The author argues that legislative reform is required to remedy the inequities in the Court's approach to cases of domestic violence where the defendant appeals under 'compulsion by threats' or 'duress of circumstances'. Moreover, the recommendations made in the Law Commission report, "Some Criminal Defences with Particular Reference to Battered Defendants" (2001), in relation to 'compulsion by threats' and 'duress of circumstances' are mentioned and discussed. The author makes two proposals to counterpoint the Law Commission's recommendations. The Law Commissions preliminary paper, "Battered Defendants: Victims of Domestic Violence Who Offend" (2000) is also explored.

New Zealand Law Review (3) 2001 : 317-355