Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Duress - Coggle Diagram
Duress
INTRODUCTION
-
'THREATS OF IMMEDIATE DEATH OR SERIOUS PERSONAL VIOLENCE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR ACTS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE CRIMINAL.'
-
-
-
PART 1 GRAHAM TEST
'WAS THE DEFNENDANT COMPELLED TO ACT AS THEY DID BECAUSE THEY REASONABLY BELIEVED THEY HADA GOOD CAUSE TO FEAR SERIOUS INJURY? (SUBJECTIVE)
THE THREAT MUST BE OF DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY.
PROVIDED THAT THERE ARE SERIOUS THREATS THEN THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF THE THREATS CAN BE CONSIDERED - VALDERRAMA-VEGA
DOES NOT HAVE TO BE CAPABLE OF BEING CARRIED OUT, ASLONG AS THE D GENUINLEY BELIEVED IT WAS - CAIRNS
THE THREAT OF DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY MUST BE AIMED AT THE D OR SOME OTHER PERSON FOR WHOSE SAFETY THE D WOULD REASONABLY REGARD HIMSELF RESPONSIBLE - WRIGHT
-
PART 2 GRAHAM TEST
WOULD A SOBER PERSON OF REASONABLE FIRMNESS, SHARING THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE D, HAVE RESPONDED IN THE SAME WAY? (OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE)
THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED WERE DETERMINED IN BOWEN. INCLUDES- AGE, GENDER, PHYSICAL DISABILITY. DOES NOT INCLUDE LOW IQ OR TIMIDITY
THE THREAT MUST BE EFFECTIVE AT THE MOMENT THE CRIME IS COMMITTED. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE THREATS NEED TO BE CARRIED OUT IMMEDIATELY.
DURESS CAN ONLY BE A DEFENCE IF THE D IS PLACED IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY HAVE NO SAFE AVENUE OF ESCAPE.
THE LONGER THE TIME FRAME, THE LESS LIKELY THE DEFENCE WILL SUCCEED. GILL
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT POLICE PROTECTION MAY NOT ALWAYS BE EFFECTIVE AND SO NOT GOING TO THE POLICE MIGHT NOT FAIL THE DEFENCE - HUDSON ABD TAYLOR
SELF INDUCED DURESS
A DEFENDANT CANNOT RELY ON SELF INDUCED DURESS, SUCH AS JOINING A CRIMINAL GANG OR BEING INDEBTED TO A DRUG DEALER - SHARP THIS WAS REAFFIRMED IN HASSAN WHERE THE HOUSE OF LORDS STATED THAT IF THE D FORSAW OR SHOULD HAVE FORSEEN THE RISK OF THREATS OR VIOLENCE, THEN THE DEFENCE WILL FAIL.
DURESS BY CIRCUMSTANCES
IN THE CASE OF MARTIN IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE TWO STAGE TEST SET OUT IN GRAHAM FOR DURESS BY THREATS WAS RELEVANT.
AS A RESULT OF CIRCUMSTANCES THE D BELEIVED THAT THEY OR ANOTHER PERSON WHO THEY REGARD THESMELVE RESPONSIBLE FOR WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY, AND THE SPRF WOULD HAVE ACTED IN THE SAME WAY.
IN THE CASE OF POMMELL IT WAS DETERMINED THAT DURESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE A DEFENCE TO ALL CRIMES EXCEPT MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER.