Section A

Explain duress by threats

D is compelled to Act because of direct threats from C of harm to self or someone they are responsible for

1 of 14

What cases show the difficulty to distinguish between necessity and duress?

Shayler 2001 (MI6 info leaked) and Pomell 1995 (found in bed with gun to prevent crime)

2 of 14

What is Necessity?

D is compelled to act because the harm likely to be caused by him not acting would be far greater.

3 of 14

Explain association

Association with a person or group whom he might put pressure on him to commit an offence

4 of 14

What cases are most important for association?

Fitzpatrick 1977 (joined terrorist group, no defence for robbery) and Ali 1995 (told to rob bank by duressor who he dealt drugs for, no defence) and Heath 2000 (owed money to dealer, accepted risk of threats if didn't mule)

5 of 14

When can duress not succeed as a defence? (remember wilson 2007, dad ordered son to help him kill mum)

If the crime is murder or accessory to murder

6 of 14

What is the most authoritative case?

Hasan 2005 (Aggravated burglary- threats of harm to family if didn't commit crime) Conviction quashed

7 of 14

What happens if Duress is successful and why?

Complete acquittal - the wrong done by D is of lesser gravity than one which would've been done by threaten-er

8 of 14

What happened in Abdul - Hussain and others 1999

D- Muslims fleeing Iraq, make it to Sudan but fear deportation to Iraq and torture and murder; hijack a plane. Defence allowed- harm not imminent but prospect sufficient

9 of 14

What happened in Safi (2003) and how is it different to Abdul - Hussain and others (1999) Why did HofL refuse defence?

D and others hijacked Afghan plane to escape Taliban. Defence- no other choice. No evidence of imminent threat, no prospect.

10 of 14

What is the subjective test in Graham 1982 ?

Threats of imminent death or serious physical injury. Did D act the way he did because of threats? Threats must be serious (Conway 1989) and can be against stranger (Pommell)

11 of 14

What is the Objective test in Graham 1982 ?

The threat must have been made. D cannot unreasonably believe it has been made. D must show 'the steadfastness reasonably to be expected of ordinary citizens in his situation'.

12 of 14

What is the position on psychological harm?

Baker and Wilkins (1997) - threats must be physical. Ireland and Burstow (1998) 'no clear distinction b/w psychological and physical harm. A v R 2012- threat of **** constitute threat, false imprisonment not sufficient.

13 of 14

What are some examples of what can't be taken into account ebcause they are not characteristics of a person of reasonable firmness?

Horne (1994)- pliability, timidity, undue susceptibility to threats. Bowen (1996) voluntary intoxication, sexual orientation.

14 of 14

Get Revising

Section A

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources: