Section A

HideShow resource information

1. What cases are most important for association?

  • Fitzpatrick 1997 (joined terrorist group, no defence for robbery) and Ali 1990 (told to rob bank by duressor who he dealt drugs for, no defence)
  • Fitzpatrick 1997 (joined terrorist group, no defence for robbery) and Bryne 2001 (sexual psychopath)
  • Fitzpatrick 1977 (joined terrorist group, no defence for robbery) and Ali 1995 (told to rob bank by duressor who he dealt drugs for, no defence) and Heath 2000 (owed money to dealer, accepted risk of threats if didn't mule)
  • Fitzpatrick 1997 (joined terrorist group, no defence for robbery) and Ali 1990 (told to rob bank by duressor who he dealt drugs for, no defence) and Heath 2010 (owed money to dealer, accepted risk of threats if didn't mule)
1 of 14

Other questions in this quiz

2. What happens if Duress is successful and why?

  • Reduced sentence - the wrong done by D is excused if the crime is not murder
  • Complete acquittal - the wrong done by D is of lesser gravity than one which would've been done by threaten-er
  • Complete acquittal - the wrong done by D is excused because of threats to family
  • Reduced sentence - the wrong done by D is of lesser gravity than one which would've been done by threaten-er

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. When can duress not succeed as a defence? (remember wilson 2007, dad ordered son to help him kill mum)

  • If the crime is murder or accessory to murder
  • If the crime is treason or terrorism
  • If the crime is treason or murder
  • If the crime is murder or manslaughter

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

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