Necessity Defences - Duress Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Is duress available for murder?

A

No following
R v House - obiter not available for attempted murder
R v Wilson - backs up HOUSE stating not even available for young
R v Gotts - confirmed obiter statement that defence fails for attempted murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Where is the test for duress found?

A

R v Hasan - Sets out a 6 part test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the 6 part test

A
  1. Threat must be death or serious injury
  2. Must be made against D, immediate family or someone close
  3. Did D act reasonably? (Objective test)
  4. Threats must be directly related to crime committed
  5. No evasive action
  6. D cannot use defence if he voluntarily laid himself open to threats
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Cases for threat must be death or serious injury

A

Smith - GBH = serious injury = really serious harm

R v Valderrama - cumulative effects of threats but no death or si = no case

R v Hudson + Taylor - threat had to be a present threat but doesn’t have to be at that time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What’s the objective test for D acting reasonably ?

A

A) Must genuinely believe that threat (up to jury)

B) would a sober person of reasonable firmness, Sharing similar characteristics have responded in the same way

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Cases for D acting reasonably (2)

A

R v Bowen - low IQ does not count as a characteristic but age, pregnancy, serious physical disability, recognised mental illness, gender can be considered

R v graham - voluntary consumption of drink or drugs is not a characteristic

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Case for threats being directly related

A

R v Cole - only use defence of threats are directly related to the crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Cases for evasive action (2)

A

R v Gill - had opportunity but didn’t take

R v Hudson - CoA police protection could not be completely fool proof

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Cases for duress of circs (6)

A
  1. R v Willer
  2. R v Conway
  3. R v Martin
  4. R v pommell
  5. R v cairns
  6. R v Abdul-Hussain
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly