The rest of Duress of Threats

Question 1

In deciding whether the defence should succeed, what must the jury consider?

Answer 1

a two stage test

Question 2

What is the two-staged test which decides whether the defence should succeed?

Answer 2

1) Did D reasonably believe he had good cause to fear serious injury or death?
2) Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the same characteristics have responded the same

Question 3

In what case was the two stage test which the jury must consider laid down?

Answer 3

Graham

Question 4

What case approved the two stage test in Graham? used to decide whether D should succeed

Answer 4

Howe

Question 5

What happened in the case of Graham?

Answer 5

D helped his violent partner murder V, D’s wife, as he claimed he was under duress. However D had helped lure V to the house after drinking. Conviction for murder upheld

Question 6

D helped his violent partner murder V, D’s wife, as he claimed he was under duress. However D had helped lure V to the house after drinking. Conviction for murder upheld
What case is this?

Answer 6

Graham

Question 7

What is the first part of the subjective test

1)Did D reasonably believe he had good cause to fear serious injury or death?

Answer 7

the first part of the test is based on whether the defendant did the offence because of the threats he believed had been made

Question 8

What made the first part of the two stage step process for the jury partially objective?

Answer 8

the fact that an ordinary person would have believed it

Question 9

In what case did the COA interpret the subjective part of the two stage test as being whether D may have reasonably feared for his safety ?

Answer 9

Martin

Question 10

What does it mean for D that the COA have interpreted the subjective part of the two stage test in Martin as being whether D may have reasonably feared for his safety?

Answer 10

this means ta any characteristic of the defendant which may have made him more likely to believe the threats would be taken into consideration.

Question 11

What happened in the case of Martin DP?

Answer 11

D suffered from a medical condition which would lead him to regard things said to him as threatening. He claimed he was forced to commit two robberies. Trial judge said his condition was irrelevant for the first part of the test (Did D reasonably believe he had good cause to fear serious injury or death?) but could be a characteristic under the second part of the test. COA allowed appeal and quashed conviction as the defendants mental condition is relevant in deciding whether he reasonably believed that his safety was at risk.

Question 12

D suffered from a medical condition which would lead him to regard things said to him as threatening. He claimed he was forced to commit two robberies. Trial judge said his condition was irrelevant for the first part of the test (Did D reasonably believe he had good cause to fear serious injury or death?) but could be a characteristic under the second part of the test. COA allowed appeal and quashed conviction as the defendants mental condition is relevant in deciding whether he reasonably believed that his safety was at risk.
What case is this?

Answer 12

Martin DP

Question 13

The decision made in Martin DP was in doubt following the HOL decision in what case?

Answer 13

Hassan 2005

Question 14

The HOL decision in Hasan confirmed the decision in what case which held that the defendant’s belief in the threats must be reasonable and genuine which is continued in Hassan?

Answer 14

Graham

Question 15

What was the decision held in Graham?

Answer 15

that the defendant’s belief in the threats must be reasonable and genuine

Question 16

What is the second part of the test based on?

2)Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the same characteristics have responded the same

Answer 16

the second part of the test is based on whether the reasonable man would have responded in the same way

Question 17

While the second part of the test
2)Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the same characteristics have responded the same
is based on whether the reasonable man would have responded in the same way, what is the jury allowed to take into account?

Answer 17

allowed to take certain of Ds characteristics into account, as the reasonable man is regarded as sharing the relevant characteristics of the defendant

Question 18

What characteristics can be taken into account was decided in what case/

Answer 18

Bowen

Question 19

What happened in the case of Bowen?

Answer 19

D had a low IQ and obtained goods by deception for 2 men who told him they would kill himself and his family. It was found that his IQ was irrelevant n deciding whether D found it more difficult to resist any threats. 
Only 
-age
-pregnancy,
-serious physical disability
-recognised mental illness
-gender

Question 20

What were the 5 accepted characteristics which could be seen to make it difficult for D to resist threats under duress?

Answer 20

• Age
• Pregnancy
• Serious physical disability
• Recognised medical condition
• Gender

Question 21

When can duress only be used as a defence?

Answer 21

when the defendant is placed in a situation where he has no safe avenue of escape

Question 22

D claimed that he and his wife had been threatened unless he stole a lorry. There was a period of time during which he was left alone and could have raised the alarm. As he had a ‘safe avenue of escape’ he could not rely on the defence of duress.
What case is this?

Answer 22

Gill

Question 23

What happened in the case of Gill?

Answer 23

D claimed that he and his wife had been threatened unless he stole a lorry. There was a period of time during which he was left alone and could have raised the alarm. As he had a ‘safe avenue of escape’ he could not rely on the defence of duress.

Question 24

Why did D in Gill not get the defence of duress?

Answer 24

as he had a ‘safe avenue of escape’

Question 25

When what is available can the defendant not rely on duress?

Answer 25

police protection

Question 26

In what case was it accepted that police protection might not always be effective?

Answer 26

Hudson and Taylor

Question 27

What happened in the case of Hudson and Taylor?

Answer 27

Ds were young girls who were threatened with death to lie about identifying a man on trial, charged with perjury but conviction quashed by COA who acknowledged that there was some cases where the police could not arrived effective protection. COA said jury should consider, age and circumstances of the threats.

Question 28

Ds were young girls who were threatened with death to lie about identifying a man on trial, charged with perjury but conviction quashed by COA who acknowledged that there was some cases where the police could not arrived effective protection. COA said jury should consider, age and circumstances of the threats. What is this case?

Answer 28

Hudson and Taylor

Question 29

What case was criticised by the HOL in Hasan due to the fact the availability of police protection should make the defence of duress unavailable?

Answer 29

Hudson and Taylor

Question 30

When must the threat be in order for the defence of duress to be available?

Answer 30

it must be effective at the moment the crime is committed, but this does not mean that the threats need to be able carried out immediately

Question 31

Why did the judge in the case of Hudson and Taylor rules that the defence of duress was not first available to the two girls?

Answer 31

this was because the threat could not be immediately put into effect while the girls were giving evidence so there was no reason for them not to have given truthful evidence

Question 32

In the case of Hudson and Taylor the COA ruled that the threat could not be immediately put into effect and so was not a 'present' threat. What did this mean?

Answer 32

that if the threat is hanging over the defendant at the time he or she commits the offence then the defence is available.

Question 33

What type of case is Abdul-Hussain?

Answer 33

a case on duress of circumstances

Question 34

What happened in the case of Abdul-Hussain?

Answer 34

Ds fled their country through fear of punishment for their religion. Out of fear they hijacked a plane. Pleaded duress. It was ruled that the danger was not sufficiently 'close and immediate.' COA quashed convictions as threat need not be immediate but imminent to the sense it was hanging over them

Question 35

Ds fled their country through fear of punishment for their religion. Out of fear they hijacked a plane. Pleaded duress. It was ruled that the danger was not sufficiently 'close and immediate.' COA quashed convictions as threat need not be immediate but imminent to the sense it was hanging over them What case is this?

Answer 35

Abdul-Hussain

Question 36

What 3 things did the COA hold in Abdul-Hussain?

Answer 36

1) Must be imminent peril of death or serious injury 2) The sense of death must be hanging over them 3) Execution of the threat need not be immediately in prospect

Question 37

How did the COA back their ruling in Abdul-Hussain?

Answer 37

by giving a hypothetical example based on the history of Anne Frank. Under English law, if her family stole a car and fled they would not be guilty on the grounds that the threat was imminent

Question 38

The defendant can only use the defence if the threats are to make him commit which offence?

Answer 38

the specific offence they were threatened by

Question 39

What case is an example of when the threat has to make the defendant commit a specific offence?

Answer 39

Cole

Question 40

What happened in the case of Cole?

Answer 40

D claimed he and his family were threatened for money, as he did not have the money, he committed two robberies. Conviction upheld as he had not been told to commit the robberies. There was not a sufficient connection between the threat and crime committed

Question 41

D claimed he and his family were threatened for money, as he did not have the money, he committed two robberies. Conviction upheld as he had not been told to commit the robberies. There was not a sufficient connection between the threat and crime committed What case is this?

Answer 41

Cole

Question 42

In what type of duress does the case of Cole apply to which decided that there has to be a sufficient connection between the threats and the crimes committed?

Answer 42

duress of threats, not duress of circumstances

Question 43

How does duress of circumstances differ to that of duress of threats in regards to the offence the defendant commits?

Answer 43

In duress of circumstances, the defence may be used for any offence which is an appropriate response to the danger posed by the circumstances

Question 44

What case demonstrates a defence of duress of circumstances which reflects that Ds committed a crime which they were not directly threatened to commit?

Answer 44

Abdul-Hussain where the danger was of torture and execution and the offence committed was hijacking

Question 45

When would a defendant not be able to use the defence of duress while intoxicated?

Answer 45

if D becomes voluntarily intoxicated and mistakenly believes he is being threatened

Question 46

What is self-induced duress?

Answer 46

this is where D has brought duress on himself through his actions. Such as is D voluntarily joins a criminal gang and commits some offences, but then is forced under duress to commit other crimes he did not want to do

Question 47

What is the normal rule for self induced duress?

Answer 47

where D is aware that he may be put under duress to commit offences, he cannot use the defence

Question 48

IN what 2 situations could self induced duress apply?

Answer 48

1) Where D joins a criminal gang he knows is likely to use violence 2) Where D puts himself in a position where he knows he will be likely subject to threats of violence such as criminal activity e.g. drug dealer

Question 49

What 3 cases are examples of self induced duress?

Answer 49

Sharp Shepherd Hasan

Question 50

What happened in the case of Sharp?

Answer 50

D joined a gang who carried out robberies but claimed he wanted to withdraw but was forced under duress to continue doing them. COA ruled that he could not use duress as he joined the gang knowing they were likely to use violence.

Question 51

D joined a gang who carried out robberies but claimed he wanted to withdraw but was forced under duress to continue doing them. COA ruled that he could not use duress as he joined the gang knowing they were likely to use violence. What case is this?

Answer 51

Sharp

Question 52

What case contrasts that of Sharp?

Answer 52

Shepherd

Question 53

What happened in the case of Shepherd?

Answer 53

D joined a gang of shoplifters but non-violent. D wanted to stop when they began using violence, but was then threatened with violence that he could not stop. COA quashed conviction as he had no knowledge that the gang was likely to use violence.

Question 54

D joined a gang of shoplifters but non-violent. D wanted to stop when they began using violence, but was then threatened with violence that he could not stop. COA quashed conviction as he had no knowledge that the gang was likely to use violence. What case is this?

Answer 54

Shepherd

Question 55

The rule that duress is not available where it is self induced has been extended to situations where...?

Answer 55

where D associates with violent criminals

Question 56

In what case did the defendant owe money to a drug dealer and was given the defence of duress when threatened and made to help in the supply of cannibas which was because he knew that becoming indebted to a drug dealer was putting himself at risk of being threatened.

Answer 56

Heath

Question 57

What happened in the case of Heath?

Answer 57

defendant owed money to a drug dealer and was given the defence of duress when threatened and made to help in the supply of cannibas. This is because he knew that becoming indebted to a drug dealer was putting himself at risk of being threatened.

Question 58

What did the case of Hasan clear up?

Answer 58

It cleared up the confliction of whether self induced duress could be a defence

Question 59

What happened in the case of Hasan?

Answer 59

D associated with a violent drug dealer who threatened D to burgle a house for money or harm would come to him and his family. D was unable to steal the money. COA asked did D foresaw the risk of threats. HOL reinstated conviction as those who voluntarily associated with others engaged in criminal activity and foresaw the risk, are no allowed the defence.

Question 60

D associated with a violent drug dealer who threatened D to burgle a house for money or harm would come to him and his family. D was unable to steal the money. COA asked did D foresaw the risk of threats. HOL reinstated conviction as those who voluntarily associated with others engaged in criminal activity and foresaw the risk, are no allowed the defence. What case is this?

Answer 60

Hasan