Duress by threats, circumstances and necessity Flashcards
Duress by threats
D has been forced to commit a crime because of a threat made to them
- defined in AG V Whelan
Common law defence - Full defence = D acquitted
R V Howe and R v Gotts
Duress never a defence to:
MURDER - Howe
or
ATTEMPTED MURDER - Gotts
R v Wilson confirmed decision in Gotts
Elements for duress by threats
Elements set out in R V Hasan
- The threats must have been to cause death or serious injury
AND
must be effective at the time
R V Valderrama-vaga
D illegally imported coke, claimed mafia type org had threatened him with death, finaccial threats and threats to reveal homosexulality
(JUDGES ENTITLED TO LOOK AT CUMULATIVE THREATS MADE)
where there has been a death threat, judges entitled to consider all other threats if made
Eg, threat to reveal homosexuality alone would be insufficient
_____________________________________
the threat doesn’t need to be carried out immediately - threat must be ‘present’
R V Hudson and Taylor - 2 teen girls committed perjury (perverting the court of justice) - Saw the violent man in the court public gallery, had been told he would cut them up
- threat must be directed against;
D themselves
Immediate family member
someone close to them
someone they would regard reasonably responsible for
- Did the D act reasonably?
R V Graham = the Graham Test;
(shows how defense is not available if D because intoxicated voluntarily)
1) was D compelled to act as they did because they had good reason to fear serious injury/death? (sub)
2) Would a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing the characteristics of the D responded in the same way? (obj)
|
|
R V Bowen sets out the characteristics that effect the objective element;
- age
- pregnancy
- serious physical disability
- recognized mental illness
- gender
- Crime must be related to the threat
R V Cole
- D’s himself, his gf and child had been threatened in order to make him repay money he owed = robbed building societies to get this money
the threat was not to commit robbery = no defence
- Threat must be imminent (D couldn’t have taken evasive action)
R V gill/ R V Abdul Hussain
- if D has “safe avenue of escape”= cannot rely on duress
Abdul hussain = D’s were shia muslims who had fled to sudan from iraq to avoid exectution due to religion, they hijacked the plane as they feared they would be taken back to iraq
- where D layed hiself open to threats = No defence
Gang Cases
R V Sharp = joined gang who carried out armed robberies (knew what he signed up for), wished to leave, but threatened
took part in robbery where someone was killed in post office
VS
R V Shepard
D joined shoplifting gang, threatened when he tried to leave, charged with burglary but conviction quashed - D DIDNT sign up for burglaries, so future burglaries could now use the defence (not the previous shoplifting)
- Intoxication and threats
if D mistakens threat because voluntarily intoxicated they cannot use the defense
Duress of circumstances
D has been forced to commit a crime due to the circumstances dictating them rather than the threat of a person
all duress rules still apply
Circumstance where D feels there is a likely hood of dearth or injury
Martin - drove son to work (at risk of loosing his job) despite being disqualified because wife threatened suicide
Willer - drove on pavement to escape gang of youths, drove to police station to report the incident
R V Conway = D speeding as he thought that the car behind him was the car involved in a shooting previously with the passenger of the car, in fact it was the police
Abdul Hussain
Necessity
Re. Conjoined Twins
