Duress
- Created by: joshnicholls238
- Created on: 14-02-14 12:40
View mindmap
- Duress
- explanation
- covers situation where d is forced or feel compelled to do something because of threats of death + serious energy
- can = aquital
- only available if offence is nominated
- R v Cole
- covers situation where d is forced or feel compelled to do something because of threats of death + serious energy
- duress of circumstance
- threat comes from circumstance rather than event
- R v Willer
- R v Conway
- R V Martin
- R v Pommell
- threat comes from circumstance rather than event
- Threat must be death or serious injury
- as in hudson v taylor
- confirmed in Hassan
- any lesser threat not sufficient
- Lynch v DPP = destruction of property
- Valaderamma Vega
- Cumulative nature of threats may be considered but must have death or serious injury threat
- as in hudson v taylor
- threat may be made to d or others
- R v Oritz
- duress allowed were friends or involved
- R v Willer + R v Conway
- R v Shayler = even a complete stranger
- threat must be immediate
- R v Abdul-Hussain= threat must be imminent but does not mean immediate
- R v Safi = confirmed
- Hassan restricted
- R v Safi = confirmed
- R v Abdul-Hussain= threat must be imminent but does not mean immediate
- opportunity to escape or seek help
- must show evidence d had no option but to comply
- R v Gill
- must show evidence d had no option but to comply
- not allowed where d is voluntarily associated with criminal association
- R v Sharp
- r V Shepard
- d need not have joined criminal association / join violent gang to be refused the defence
- R v Ali
- R v Hassan
- the graham test
- established in R v Graham
- subjective test
- 2 questions asked
- 1) was d compelled to act a result of what he reasonably believed
- R v Safi and others
- 2) did d have good cause to fear that if he did not act as he did it would have resulted in the death or serious injury
- 1) was d compelled to act a result of what he reasonably believed
- 2 questions asked
- objective test
- would a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing same characteristics as d have responded in the same way
- R v Bowen
- would a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing same characteristics as d have responded in the same way
- explanation
Comments
No comments have yet been made