Pages in this set

Page 1

Preview of page 1

This defence is based on the premise that the defendant was forced to commit the offence due to being
threatened with serious violence or death.
The D will have to choose between death or committing a crime and within such a situation it is clear they
will choose…

Page 2

Preview of page 2
robberies due to two men. The CoA quashed his conviction and held that duress should be treat the
same as self-defence in regard to a belief in the circumstances.
However, the Hasan (formerly Z) decision places this precedent in doubt as they followed
Graham (1982) which means the D's…

Page 3

Preview of page 3
repay the money not to steal. Therefore, there was no sufficient connection between the threats and the
Duress of circumstances, however allows for any offence to be committed that is reasonable in the
circumstances as shown in Abdul-Hussain (1999).

Self-Induced Duress.
This involves situations where the D had…

Page 4

Preview of page 4
consider whether the D's actions were "actually necessary". D's conviction was quashed as he reasonably
perceived a threat of serious physical injury or death.

Problems with the law of Duress.
× Unavailable for murder: Due to the case of Howe (1987) the defence is unavailable for murder. This can…


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »