Duress Flashcards
R v Graham
1) Did the defendant act as he did because, as a result of what he reasonably believed had been threatened, if he did not act he would have good cause to fear the person issuing the threat would kill or cause GBH?
2) Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the defendant, have responded thus?
3) Could the defendant have taken evasive action?
R v Hasan
1) There must be threat of death or serious injury
2) Threat must have been made to the defendant, his family or someone for whom the defendant would regard themselves as responsible
3) Perception of threat and response are assessed objectively
4) There must have been no evasive action the defendant could reasonably have taken
5) Cannot use defence where due to association with criminals, the defendant ought to have foreseen the risk of being subjected to threats of violence
DPP NI v Lynch
Threat to property is not sufficient
Defence not available for murder or attempted murder
R v Valderrama-Vega
If there are several threats, as long as one is of serious injury or death, it will be sufficient
R v Shayler
May feel responsible for complete strangers in certain circumstances
R v Bowen
Unusually low IQ could not be taken into account in assessing if response to threat was reasonable
R v Abbott
The crime carried out must be proportional to the threat
R v Cole
Must be a nexus between threat and crime committed
R v Shepherd
Cannot rely on threats to which he has voluntarily laid himself open unless trouble were to materialise unexpectedly
R v Martin
Duress of circumstances (necessity)
1) Must reasonably believe that he had good cause to fear that death or serious injury might result unless he acts
2) Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the accused, have responded to the situation in the same way?
R v Abdul Hussein
Threat need not be accompanied by command to commit a particular crime
Available where ‘imminent’ harm threatened
R v Dudley & Stevens
Not a defence to murder