Self-Defence, Infancy, Duress and Necessity

Question 1

R v Gladstone Williams

Answer 1

Ratio: 1. Protection of life and limb of yourself or another is a reason for acting. 2. D’s belief that the use of force is necessary can be mistaken.

Facts: A youth saw a woman being robbed and attempted to lawfully apprehend the robber. Williams arrived and thought the youth was unlawfully attacking the robber and so attacked the youth. Williams was charged under s.47 OAPA 1861 and successfully argued self-defence even though he was mistaken as to the necessity of his actions.

Question 2

R v Hussey

Answer 2

Ratio: Protection of property is a reason for acting.

Question 3

R v Bullerton

Answer 3

Ratio: Self-defence does not operate as a defence for actions taken arising from a threat to one’s peace of mind.

Question 4

R v O’Connor

Answer 4

Ratio: If D’s mistaken belief as to the need to use force is due to voluntary intoxication, he will not be able to rely on his mistake.

Question 5

R v Hatton

Answer 5

Ratio: If D’s mistaken belief as to the need to use force is due to voluntary intoxication, he will not be able to rely on his mistake.

Facts: H had drunk over 20 pints and killed his victim with a sledgehammer. The victim had been pretending to be a member of the SAS and a stick, owned by H and which H had fashioned to look like a samurai sword was found by the victim’s body. H only had a vague recollection of what happened but put forward a defence on the basis that he believed he was being attacked by an SAS officer with a sword. Court held this mistaken belief was brought about by intoxication and so could not be relied upon.

Question 6

R v Bird

Answer 6

Ratio: There is no duty to retreat.

Question 7

Devlin v Armstrong

Answer 7

Ratio: Pre-emptive strikes are allowed in the case of self-defence as long as the threat is imminent.

Question 8

R v Forrester

Answer 8

Ratio: Self-defence may be used by an antagonist.

Facts: F was a tenant of W who had retained D’s deposit on termination of the tenancy. F and others went to the premises and removed some of W’s property. Evidence suggested that while on the premises F could have been attacked by W. F was entitled to rely on self-defence.

Question 9

R v Rashford

Answer 9

Ratio: Self-defence may be used by an antagonist. The defence is only available to the person who started the fight if the person whom he attacks not only defends himself but goes over to the offensive.

Question 10

R v Hichens

Answer 10

Ratio: Force can be used against an innocent third party.

Facts: D moved in with Y. Y’s ex-boyfriend objected to this and threatened D several times. Y’s ex-boyfriend came to the flat and Y wanted to let her in. D slapped Y to try to prevent her allowing her ex-boyfriend in. D tried to claim he had used reasonable force to prevent the commission of a crime in self-defence. This was accepted in principle although not on the facts.

Question 11

R v Owino

Answer 11

Ratio: For non-householder cases, the jury must determine whether the force used was reasonable. This is an objective test according to the facts as D understood them to be.

Question 12

Palmer v R

Answer 12

Ratio: In non-householder cases, the jury must consider that the defendant may have acted in the heat of the moment.

Question 13

Reed v Wastie

Answer 13

Ratio: ‘In the circumstances one did not use jewellers’ scales to measure reasonable force’.

Question 14

R (on the application of Denby Collins) v SoS Justive

Answer 14

Ratio: For householder cases, there is a two part test for the second limb of self-defence. 1. Is the force grossly disproportionate? 2. If not, is it reasonable?

Question 15

R v Clegg

Answer 15

Ratio: Self-defence is an all or nothing defence - if it fails in any way it will fail entirely.

Question 16

R v T

Answer 16

Ratio: The defence of doli incapax (incapable of guilt), can never apply to children over ten.

Question 17

R v Graham

Answer 17

Ratio: 1. First case to define the defence of duress by threats. 2. The threat and response will be judged objectively.

Question 18

R v Hasan

Answer 18

Ratio: 1. There must be a threat to cause death or serious injury. 2. The threat must be made to D/his family/someone close to D/someone D felt responsible for. 3. Perception of threat and response must be judged objectively. 4. There must be a causal nexus between the threat and the crime. 5. There must be no evasive action D could reasonably have taken. 6. ‘The defence of duress is excluded when as a result of the accused’s voluntary association with others engaged in criminal activity he foresaw or ought reasonably to have foreseen the risk of being subjected to compulsion by threats of violence’’. 7. Duress is not a defence to murder.

Question 19

DPP for NI v Lynch

Answer 19

Ratio: For duress, threat to property is not enough.

Question 20

R v Shayler

Answer 20

Ratio: For duress, the defendant can consider himself responsible for strangers.

Question 21

R v Brandford

Answer 21

Ratio: 1. Threat to D can be relayed indirectly. 2. Pressure is insufficient.

Question 22

R v Bowen

Answer 22

Ratio: When determining whether the perception of the threat and response is reasonable, any recognised mental health conditions suffered by D can be considered.

Question 23

Abbott v R

Answer 23

Ratio: When determining whether the perception of the threat and the response is reasonable, proportionality will be considered.

Question 24

R v Cole

Answer 24

Ratio: For duress, there must be a causal link between the threat and the crime.

Facts: Cole pleaded duress after robbing a building society to pay debts to moneylenders. Court held that a plea of duress was not available as moneylenders had not stipulated that he commit robbery to meet their demands.

Question 25

R v Valderrama-Vega

Answer 25

Ratio: A defendant is entitled to rely on duress if he acts because of the cumulative effect of threats, providing he would not have acted if it had not been for the threat of death or serious injury. Facts: D claimed he had imported cocaine because of death threats and also because he needed to the money to repay a debt. Trial judge directed the jury that the defence of duress would not work if there were multiple reasons for committing the crime. Court of Appeal held this was a misdirection.

Question 26

R v Hudson and Taylor

Answer 26

Ratio: Example of the court taking a flexible approach to whether the defendant could have taken evasive action. Facts: Two girls gave false evidence because they had been threatened with physical injury if they told the truth by an individual who was sitting in the gallery of the court. They were allowed to use the defence of duress to a charge of perjury as their will was being acted on by the threat at the time. Note - in Hasan, the courts were not as accommodating: if the retribution threatened 'is not such as he reasonably expects to follow immediately or almost immediately on his failure to comply with the threat, there may be little if any room for doubt that he could have taken evasive action'.

Question 27

R v Sharp

Answer 27

Ratio: If a person joins a violent gang, they lay themselves open to threats. Facts: Accused joined a gang of robbers who he knew used firearms. He participated in a robbery and tried to claim he did so because the gang had threatened to kill him if he did not. Defence of duress was not available to him.

Question 28

R v Shepherd

Answer 28

Ratio: Duress may succeed if a person joins a gang but did not foresee the possibility of violence being used. Facts: S had been in a gang of shoplifters. When he tried to leave the gang he was threatened with violence and so was compelled to carry on. Court held that duress was applicable as he had not foreseen that the gang would become violent.

Question 29

R v Ali (Israr)

Answer 29

Ratio: The association does not need to be with criminals to prevent the defence of duress from operating.

Question 30

Abbott v R

Answer 30

Ratio: Duress is not available as a defence to murder.

Question 31

R v Gotts

Answer 31

Ratio: Duress is not available as a defence to attempted murder.

Question 32

London Borough of Southwark v Williams

Answer 32

Ratio: Necessity is not a general defence. Facts: a homeless man was not allowed to plead necessity to justify trespassing.

Question 33

R v Dudley and Stevens

Answer 33

Ratio: Necessity is not a defence to murder.

Question 34

Re A (Minors) Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment

Answer 34

Ratio: Necessity was allowed to kill one twin.

Question 35

R v Martin

Answer 35

Ratio: Test for duress of circumstances - 1. Was the accused, or may he have been, impelled to act as he did because as a result of what he reasonably believed to be the situation he had good cause to fear that otherwise death or serious physical injury would result. 2. If so, would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the accused, have responded to the situation by acting as the accused did? Note - the threat must be of death or serious personal injury.

Question 36

R v Pommell

Answer 36

Ratio: Duress of circumstances is available in circumstances other than traffic offences. Facts: Pommell was found with a gun, claimed he had taken it to prevent a friend murdering someone. Court held that duress of circumstances was available.

Question 37

R v Baker and Wilkins

Answer 37

Ratio: Duress of circumstances can be available to a charge of criminal damage, provided the accused acted to prevent death or serious personal injury.

Question 38

R v Abdul-Hussain

Answer 38

Ratio: Duress of circumstances is available where the threat is imminent, even if it is not immediate.