Defences: Duress Flashcards
what are the two types of duress
-threats
-circumstances
when does the defence of duress by threats apply
when D commits a crime after X threatens to kill or injure D or someone else if D doesnt commit the crime
what are 3 general cases and their legal principles regarding duress by threats
-R v Graham; no binding authority to determine if test of duress shoukd be purely obj or subj
-R v Howe; duress is no defence for murder
-R v Hasan; D must not open themselves up to duress by threats (eg by association with gangs)
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Graham
-no binding authority to determine if test of duress shoukd be purely obj or subj
-ususally subj then obj?
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Howe
-duress is no defence for murder
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Hasan
-D must not open themselves up to duress by threats
-D should have forseen by association with violent drug dealer they opened themselves up to future coercion
what is the high threshold of duress by threats
-D must act in response to a threat of death or serious personal injury
give 2 cases that provide insufficient threats for duress by threats
-R v Singh; threat to expose adultery is not sufficient for defence of duress by threats
-R v Valderamma-Vega; threat to expose homosexuality is not sufficient for defence of duress by threats
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Singh
-threat to expose adultery is not sufficient for defence of duress by threats
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Valderamma-Vega
- threat to expose homosexuality is not sufficient for defence of duress by threats
what cases explain what must be assumed in regards to duress by threats
-R v Baker; R v Wilkins; it must be assumed that the events D apprehended were actually gonna happen
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Baker; R v Wilkins
-CA held that it must be assumed that the events D apprehended were actually gonna happen
what cases explain where threats must come from
R v Rodger: R v Rose; threat must come from source extraneous to D
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Rodger; R v Rose
-threat must come from source extraneous to D
-prisoners claimed inc tariffs made them suicidal
-escaped prison to avoid threat of death it gave rise to; conv upheld
what case explains the test of reasonable belief in such a threat where none actually existed
-R v Hasan
-association with drug dealer meant D should have foreseen future coercion
what 2 cases explain against whom must threats be directed
-R v Ortiz; at D or others so long as the threats are of death or serious injury
-R v Wright; directed at D, D’s immediate family or anyone D would reasonably regard himself responsible for