Section A

HideShow resource information

1. What is the position on psychological harm?

  • Baker and Wilkins (1997) - threats must be physical. Ireland and Burstow (1998) 'no clear distinction b/w psychological and physical harm. A v R 2012- threat of **** constitute threat, false imprisonment not sufficient.
  • Baker and Wilkins (1997) - threat of **** constitute threat, false imprisonment also sufficient.
  • Baker and Wilkins (1997) - threats must be physical. Ireland and Burstow (1998) 'no clear distinction b/w psychological and physical harm.
  • A v R 2012- threat of **** constitute threat, false imprisonment not sufficient.
1 of 14

Other questions in this quiz

2. What is the Objective test in Graham 1982 ?

  • D must show 'the steadfastness reasonably to be expected of ordinary citizens in his situation'.
  • The threat must have been made. D can unreasonably believe it has been made.
  • The threat must have been made. D cannot unreasonably believe it has been made. D must show 'the steadfastness reasonably to be expected of ordinary citizens in his situation'.
  • The threat must have been made. D can unreasonably believe it has been made.

3. What happened in Abdul - Hussain and others 1999

  • D- Muslims fleeing Iraq, make it to Sudan but fear deportation to Iraq and torture and murder; hijack a plane. Defence allowed- harm not imminent but prospect sufficient
  • D - Hijack plane , landed at Stansted, escaping Taliban.
  • D- Muslims fleeing Iraq, make it to Sudan but fear deportation to Iraq and torture and murder; hijack a plane. Defence not allowed- harm not imminent but prospect sufficient
  • Joined terrorist group, no defence for robbery

4. What happened in Safi (2003) and how is it different to Abdul - Hussain and others (1999) Why did HofL refuse defence?

  • D- Muslims fleeing Iraq, make it to Sudan but fear deportation to Iraq and torture and murder; hijack a plane. Defence allowed- harm not imminent. No prospect.
  • D and others hijacked Afghan plane to escape Taliban. Defence- no other choice. Prospect and not enough evidence of threat.
  • D and others hijacked Afghan plane to escape Taliban. Defence- no other choice. No evidence of imminent threat, no prospect.
  • D and others hijacked Afghan plane to escape Taliban. Defence- no other choice. No prospect. Evidence of imminent threat.

5. What is the subjective test in Graham 1982 ?

  • Threats of imminent death. Did D act the way he did because of threats?
  • Threats of imminent death or serious physical injury. Did D act the way he did because of threats? Threats must be serious (Conway 1989) and can be against stranger (Pommell)
  • Did D act the way he did because of threats? Threats must be serious (Conway 1989) and can be against stranger (Pommell)
  • Threats of imminent death or serious physical injury.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all General defences- Duress by threats resources »