duress cases Flashcards
R v Howe
sum: D took part in 2 killings due to threats made against him
sig: duress is not available for murder
R v Gotts
sum: D tried to kill mother as dad claimed he’d shoot him if not
sig: can’t claim duress for attempted murder
R v Valdarema Vega
sum: D illegally imported cocaine because of death threats to disclose his sexuality and more
sig: jury had to look at cummulative effects of all threats made against him, wihtout death threat it wasn’t enough to base defence of duress
R v Graham
sum: D took drugs for anxiety making him more vulnerable and claimed his fear of someone he lived with caused him to kill his own wife
sig: defence not available when voluntary drugs or drinking eroded D’s resist to threat
R v Bowen
sum: D had low IQ and obtained goods by deception for 2 men who threatened to petrol bomb him and his family if not
sig: Low IQ was irrelevant when considering if D found it difficult to resist threats
R v Cole
sum: D and family threatened if he didn’t repay debt so he cariied out 2 robberies to get money
sig: insufficient connection between threats and crimes committed, so defence not available
R v Hasan
sum: D charged with aggrivated burglary, he claimed he was forced to commit due to threats made to him
sig: couldn’t use duress as a defence because he was associated with a gang so should have anticipated possibility of being coerced to commit crimes
R v Gill
sum: D & wife threatened if they didn’t steal the lorry
sig: D had safe avenue of escape when left alone for period of time long enough to sound the alarm
R v Shepard
sum: D joined a shoplifting gang and had violent threats made to him when trying to leave
sig: defence could only be raised with respect to offences commited after he has been threatened
R v Sharp
sum: joined a gang then robbed a post office with them, and when he tried to stop gang leader put gun to his head as a threat
sig: couldn’t claim as voluntarily part of gang knowing of the nature of it before joining
R v Wright
sig: can be someone close ‘for whose safety he would reasonably regard himself as responsible’.
