Duress Flashcards
A-G v Whelan (1933)
“It seems to us that threats of immediate death or serious personal violence so great as to overbear the ordinary power of human resistance should be accepted as a justification for acts which would otherwise be criminal.”
Howe (1987)
The HofL stated that duress is not available to anyone charged with murder
Wilson (2007)
The CofA held duress can’t be used as defence to murder, no matter how vulnerable or susceptible to threats the D might be
Gotts (1992)
The CofA stated duress is not available as a defence to attempted murder
Valderrama-Vega (1985)
The Judge stated that duress is only available if death threats were the sole reason for committing the offence. The CofA quashed the conviction and said that the jury could look at the cumulative effect of the threats
Martin (1989)
Duress succeeded even though the threats were towards his wife and not him
Conway (1988)
Duress succeeded as the D feared his passenger would be shot
Graham (1982)
the courts set the two part test for establishing duress:
1. Was the D compelled to act as he did because he reasonably believed he had good cause to fear serious injury or death?
2. Would a sober, reasonable person sharing the same characteristics of the D have responded in the same way?
Bowen (1996)
IQ is irrelevant when deciding where the D finds it difficult to resist threats. Relevant characteristics must affect the Ds ability to resist pressure and threats
Cole (1994)
Duress failed as there was no sufficient link between the threat and the crime committed
Hasan (2005)
The HofL stated for the defence to be available the D must believe that the threat will follow immediately or almost immediately. An imminent threat is not tnough
Shepherd (1987)
His conviction was quashed as shoplifters are of a different nature to violent organised crime gangs. Therefore he had no knowledge they would use violence towards him
Hasan (2005)
The HofL held that duress was unavailable as the D voluntarily associated himself with others who engage in criminal activity. He should have foreseen a threat of violence
Dudley v Stephens (1884)
Necessity failed and the Ds couldn’t claim that their acts were the lesser of two evils
Re A (Conjoined Twins)(2000)
The CofA stated that the operation would be lawful and the defence of necessity would be available if the doctors were to be prosecuted by the parents for the murder. They would be able to claim the operation was necessary to save one of the twins, rather than both dying.
