Subramaniam was charged with possession of ammunition for the purpose of helping a terrorist enemy, which would carry a sentence of death.
He pleaded a defense of duress, claiming that he had no choice as the terrorists had threatened to kill him if he did not follow through with their requests.
The Privy Council characterized the hearsay rule as follows: The Council found that since the statements were not used in order to prove one of the issues of law, rather it was in order to prove whether the defendant was reasonable in his actions, the hearsay rule should not apply.
The truth of the statements made by the terrorists were not significant, it is merely the fact that they said something that would create a reasonable apprehension in the defendant.
This articulation of the hearsay rule was adopted in Canada in the case of R. v. Wildman (1981), 60 CCC (2d) 289 (Ont CA).