Which of the following best describes the defense of duress as seen in R V Graham (1982)?

The defense of duress, as established in R v Graham (1982), fundamentally revolves around the notion of committing a crime due to an immediate threat of violence or harm. In this case, the defendant was compelled to commit an offense because he believed that failing to do so would result in serious injury or death, highlighting the essential elements of duress.

This defense captures the core idea that a person's free will is overpowered by the fear of harm, making it a crucial point in legal discussions about liability and intent. The concept emphasizes that the individual's actions, although criminal in nature, were not performed with malicious intent but were a response to an extreme threat.

In contrast, the other options do not accurately encompass the legal definition of duress. Acting in self-defense involves protecting oneself from immediate harm, which differs significantly from the proactive response required in duress. Being coerced by a partner into crime may relate to duress but lacks the specific emphasis on the immediate threat of violence that characterizes the defense, and defending oneself due to provocation does not align with duress as it relates more to reactions to insults or provocations rather than threats of violence.