Defences: Duress

Question 1

what are the two types of duress

Answer 1

-threats
-circumstances

Question 2

when does the defence of duress by threats apply

Answer 2

when D commits a crime after X threatens to kill or injure D or someone else if D doesnt commit the crime

Question 3

what are 3 general cases and their legal principles regarding duress by threats

Answer 3

-R v Graham; no binding authority to determine if test of duress shoukd be purely obj or subj
-R v Howe; duress is no defence for murder
-R v Hasan; D must not open themselves up to duress by threats (eg by association with gangs)

Question 4

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Graham

Answer 4

-no binding authority to determine if test of duress shoukd be purely obj or subj
-ususally subj then obj?

Question 5

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Howe

Answer 5

-duress is no defence for murder

Question 6

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Hasan

Answer 6

-D must not open themselves up to duress by threats
-D should have forseen by association with violent drug dealer they opened themselves up to future coercion

Question 7

what is the high threshold of duress by threats

Answer 7

-D must act in response to a threat of death or serious personal injury

Question 8

give 2 cases that provide insufficient threats for duress by threats

Answer 8

-R v Singh; threat to expose adultery is not sufficient for defence of duress by threats
-R v Valderamma-Vega; threat to expose homosexuality is not sufficient for defence of duress by threats

Question 9

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Singh

Answer 9

-threat to expose adultery is not sufficient for defence of duress by threats

Question 10

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Valderamma-Vega

Answer 10

• threat to expose homosexuality is not sufficient for defence of duress by threats

Question 11

what cases explain what must be assumed in regards to duress by threats

Answer 11

-R v Baker; R v Wilkins; it must be assumed that the events D apprehended were actually gonna happen

Question 12

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Baker; R v Wilkins

Answer 12

-CA held that it must be assumed that the events D apprehended were actually gonna happen

Question 13

what cases explain where threats must come from

Answer 13

R v Rodger: R v Rose; threat must come from source extraneous to D

Question 14

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Rodger; R v Rose

Answer 14

-threat must come from source extraneous to D
-prisoners claimed inc tariffs made them suicidal
-escaped prison to avoid threat of death it gave rise to; conv upheld

Question 15

what case explains the test of reasonable belief in such a threat where none actually existed

Answer 15

-R v Hasan
-association with drug dealer meant D should have foreseen future coercion

Question 16

what 2 cases explain against whom must threats be directed

Answer 16

-R v Ortiz; at D or others so long as the threats are of death or serious injury
-R v Wright; directed at D, D’s immediate family or anyone D would reasonably regard himself responsible for

Question 17

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Ortiz

Answer 17

• threats must be directed at D or others so long as the threats are of death or serious injury

Question 18

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Wright

Answer 18

-threats must be directed at D, D’s immediate family or anyone D would reasonably regard himself responsible for

Question 19

how must D deal with the threat (2 factors?0

Answer 19

(i) D’s belief in / perception of threat
(ii) D’s subsequent reaction to the threat

Question 20

give 4 legal principles/ cases regarding (i) D’s belief in/ perception of threat

Answer 20

-objective framework
-R v Graham; no bindingauthority on if test for duress should be purely obj or subj
-R v Howe; no defence for murder
-R v Hassan; foresight/ association negates defence

Question 21

give 5 legal principles/ cases regarding (ii) D’s subsequent reaction to threat (sting of threat)

Answer 21

-age/sex/disability characteristics can be considered
-Emery (1993); recognised psychiatric condition can be considered
-R v Bowen; low IQ not considered
-R v Hegarty; vulnerability not considered
-R v Hurst; effects of child abuse not considered (not imminent)
-R v Flatt; drug addiction not considered (seen as self induced)

Question 22

what happened/ is the legal principle in Emery (1993)

Answer 22

• recognised psychiatric condition can be considered in (ii) D’s subsequent reaction to the threat/ sting of threat

Question 23

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Bowen

Answer 23

-low IQ not considered in (ii) D’s subsequent reaction to the threat/ sting of threat

Question 24

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Hegarty

Answer 24

-vulnerability not considered in (ii) D’s subsequent reaction to the threat/ sting of threat

Question 25

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Hurst

Answer 25

-effects of child abuse not considered (not imminent) in (ii) D's subsequent reaction to the threat/ sting of threat

Question 26

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Flatt

Answer 26

-drug addiction not considered (seen as self induced) in (ii) D's subsequent reaction to the threat/ sting of threat

Question 27

how is causation proven for duress by threat and 2 case examples

Answer 27

-must be a causal link between the threat and D's act in response -R v Valderamma-Vega; threat to expose homosexuality -DPP v Bell; successfully pleaded duress (of circs) to drunk driving to escape danger

Question 28

what happened/ is the legal principle in DPP v Bell

Answer 28

-successfully pleaded duress (of circs) to drunk driving to escape danger

Question 29

give 2 cases regarding nominated crimes for duress by threats

Answer 29

-only a defence if D commits SPECIFIC crime nominated by the person making the threat -R v Cole; loan shark threatened serious violence against D to get money back so D robbed places to get money but insufficient causal link as loan shark didnt tell D to rob anywhere -R v Ali; D involved with drug dealers and told to rob somewhere or die but dismissed as he knew the nature of the gang when he joined

Question 30

what happened/ is the principle in R v Cole

Answer 30

-loan shark threatened serious violence against D to get money back - D robbed places to get money - insufficient causal link as loan shark didnt tell D to rob anywhere

Question 31

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Ali

Answer 31

- D involved with drug dealers - told to rob somewhere or die -dismissed as he knew the nature of the gang when he joined

Question 32

give a case regarding 'unavoidability' for duress by threat

Answer 32

R v Gill; no duress if D had a 'safe avenue of escape' not taken at one point (as he is expected to take evasive action if possible)

Question 33

what happebed/ is the legal principle in R v Gill

Answer 33

-no duress if D had a 'safe avenue of escape' not taken at one point (as he is expected to take evasive action if possible)

Question 34

give 3 cases/ legal principles related to 'immediacy' for threats by duress

Answer 34

-threat of death/serious injury must be objectively immediate/ almost immediate (R v Hasan) -so D couldnt be reasonably expected to make evasive action -R v Hurst; not immediate (effects of child abuse) -R v Flatt; had time to contact authorities

Question 35

give 2 cases that relate to voluntary exposure to death by threats

Answer 35

-R v Sharp ( similar to Hasan) -R v Hasan

Question 36

what are the similar/same legal elements for duress by circumstance (and by threat)

Answer 36

-no duress for murder (R v Howe) -no duress if voluntarily exposed himself to threatening circs (R v Sharp, R v Hasan) -threat(ening circs) must emenate from source extraneous to D (R v Rodger; R v Rose) -no defence if D didnt commit specific crime D told them to

Question 37

give 2 case examples of duress by circumstances

Answer 37

-R v Willer; duress by circs found when D recklessly drove to escape a violent crowd -R v Martin; wife said shed kill herself if D, who was unlicensed) didnt drive her son to work; appeal allowed

Question 38

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Willer

Answer 38

- duress by circs found when D recklessly drove to escape a violent crowd

Question 39

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Martin

Answer 39

-wife said shed kill herself if D, who was unlicensed) didnt drive her son to work -appeal allowed

Question 40

what crimes is the defence of duress by circumstances available for

Answer 40

-all crimes except murder, attempted murder and assisting murder (as an accomplice)

Question 41

what case explains why duress by circumstance is not available for attempted murder

Answer 41

-R v Gotts; it would be anomalous to allow the defence for attempted murder (which has the MR of intent to kill) when murder can be established with a lower level MR (intent to cause GBH)

Question 42

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Gotts

Answer 42

-duress by circs is unavailable for attempted murder because it would be anomalous to allow the defence for attempted murder (which has the MR of intent to kill) when murder can be established with a lower level MR (intent to cause GBH)