Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Defense Part 2 - Coggle Diagram
Defense Part 2
Duress of Circumstance
-
-
-
Willer (1986), defendant was hanging with his friends in his car when a gang started shouting threats, in order to escape the defendant drove onto the pavement to inform the police. He was convicted of reckless driving, court of appeal quashed the conviction and said he could rely on duress.
Conway (1989) Defendant drove recklessly away from two men who came running towards the car, passenger had been shot two weeks previously and feared another attack. Men were actually police in plain cloths to arrest passenger of a bench warrant. Defendant quashed the conviction
-
Self Defense
-
They are private defenses under common law, covered by criminal justice and immigration act 2008
Defined in Section 3(1), Criminal Law Act 1967
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
-
Example
Palmer v R. (1971) Self-Defense is applicable if they honestly believe the use of force was appropriate to defending themselves
-
Objective; Did the defendant use a reasonable amount of force in the circumstances as he believed them to be?
-
Duress
-
Defined as outside pressure, when defendant is pressured to make a criminal act or suffer GBH to him or his family
-
It is a general defense except for attempted murder, murder and treason
-
Duress Test
Graham (1982) Defendant was living with his wife and a homosexual man whom they had coitus. Man was jealous of wife and told defendant that they kill her, defendant pleaded Duress, the court eventually accepted the conviction
Howe(1987) Defendant participated in a killing as a second party, but with the principles of another killing, said they were worried of the repressions of the fear of a man named Murry. Judge said it doesn't matter as long as they had the principle of killing another, they are convicted guilty
-
Bowen(1996) Leading case to where a persons characteristics are taken into account during the Duress test.
Defendant obtained services by deception, reading IQ of a 7 year old and he was threated to have a petrol bomb unless he committed the offense, the judge said his characteristics should not be relevant, the only characteristic that should be accounted for is disability, psychiatric condition, age and sex
Necessity
-
-
Dudley and Stephens (1884) Defendants ate the boy who was weak and would likely not make it. Defendants were convicted of murder and sentences to death, but on appeal 6 months in prison.
Re A, Contained the separation of conjoined twins, separation of Jodi and Mary, Mary leeched of Jodi and would die should they be separated, Jodi would survive but required Mary die as she took the resources
Marital Coercion
-
-
Shortlands (1996), leading case, court said coercion could be physical or moral
-
Issues with Defense
Issues
Pre-emptive attack
Beckford v R. (1988) police officer who shot and killed a man who was alleged to have terrorized his family, defendant said he should have the defense since he honestly thought he was in danger, conviction was quashed due to his honest belief that he was in danger.
-
-
Mistaken Belief
Williams Gladstone(1987), defendant saw a man wrestle a youth to the floor and twist the his arm, the man said he was a police officer arresting the youth, but when asked to show a police card he couldn't turned out he was not a police officer. Defendant punched the man to protect the youth and was charged with GBH. The man was actually apprehending the youth for robbery.
Excessive Force
This is considered objectively by the jury, by examining the size, number of people, the force used, seriousness of evil to be prevent, alternative and unwillingness to fight.
-
-
Defense of Property; Valid defense under old common law prior to 1967 criminal law act, but is limited as it most likely won't be used in cases of murder