Back to quiz

6. What happened in Abdul - Hussain and others 1999

  • Joined terrorist group, no defence for robbery
  • 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 allowed- harm not imminent but prospect sufficient
  • 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

7. 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.
  • 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)

8. 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 murder
  • If the crime is murder or manslaughter
  • If the crime is treason or terrorism

9. 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. 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.
  • D and others hijacked Afghan plane to escape Taliban. Defence- no other choice. Prospect and not enough evidence of threat.

10. What cases show the difficulty to distinguish between necessity and duress?

  • Shayner 2004 (MI6) and Cole 1994 (borderline, circumstances)
  • Shayler 2001 (MI6 info leaked) and Pomell 1995 (found in bed with gun to prevent crime)
  • Cole 1994 (borderline, circumstances) and Shayler 2001 (MI6)
  • Shayler 2003 (MI6 info leaked) and Pomell 1994 (found in bed with gun to prevent crime)

11. What happens if Duress is successful and why?

  • Complete acquittal - the wrong done by D is excused because of threats to family
  • 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
  • Reduced sentence - the wrong done by D is of lesser gravity than one which would've been done by threaten-er

12. 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 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)
  • Fitzpatrick 1997 (joined terrorist group, no defence for robbery) and Bryne 2001 (sexual psychopath)

13. Explain duress by threats

  • D is compelled to Act because of direct threats from C of harm to self or someone they are responsible for
  • D is compelled to Act because of direct threats from C of harm to self
  • D is compelled to Act because of threats from C of harm to himself
  • D is compelled to Act because of circumstances surrounding threats made by C