The defendant's solicitor, John Weller, was interviewed. He saw the case as being somewhat broader in application than I did. He said:
It's very clear. [The statutory defence of duress is] quite narrow, and the High Court effectively in my view as the policy, has said, look, if you have life-threatening threats, you, or serious threats to property, the appropriate course of action is to go to the authorities. ...He's right to say that his client's who are "dubious of that faith" won't be provided with the protection of this provision, but the Court wasn't saying, 'always have faith in the police'. As I said, I think the Court was trying to say that you need a specific justification for your doubt in the effectiveness of police protection (which is particular to your circumstances or to the nature of the threat), rather than simply an "unparticularised concern".
It means no, have faith in the authorities, and report the perpetrators of violence and threats, and just have faith. And I can assure you that there's a lot of citizens out there, clients of mine, that are dubious of that faith.