General Defences Part 1

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What is a necessary condition for the duress defence to be available?

The threat was made directly by the person who stood to gain from the offence

The defendant was under the influence of drugs at the time of the offence

The defendant had an honest belief that the threat existed, even if unreasonable

The threat was to cause death or serious injury to the defendant or their family (correct)

In R v Hasan, what was the defendant's relationship to X?

D was X's business partner

D was X's brother

D was X's lawyer

D was a minder for X's prostitute girlfriend (correct)

What is the test for determining whether the threat is sufficient for the duress defence?

Whether the threat was objectively reasonable (correct)

Whether the threat was to cause death or serious injury to the defendant or their family

Whether the threat was imminent

Whether the defendant had an honest belief that the threat existed

What is not a requirement for the duress defence?

The threat was made directly by the person who stood to gain from the offence Signup and view all the answers

What is the result of D's prior fault in forming a relationship with the person making the threat?

The duress defence is not available Signup and view all the answers

What is the result of the threat not being imminent?

The duress defence is not available Signup and view all the answers

What is the requirement for the response to the threat?

The threat must be a substantial cause of the offence Signup and view all the answers

What is the result of the defendant's honest belief that the threat existed, even if unreasonable?

The duress defence is not available Signup and view all the answers

What type of threat does not activate the duress defence?

A threat from oneself Signup and view all the answers

What is the result of the defendant forming a relationship with the person making the threat?

The duress defence is not available Signup and view all the answers

What is the circumstance that D claimed led to her committing perjury in the trial?

Threat of being cut up by someone in the public gallery Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary standard used to determine whether a reasonable person would have acted as D did in a duress situation?

Objective, with some consideration of personal characteristics Signup and view all the answers

What was the outcome of the R v Graham case?

D's steadfastness was considered irrelevant due to the Valium Signup and view all the answers

In what way does duress by circumstances differ from duress by threats?

The threat/demand comes from circumstances, not another party Signup and view all the answers

What was the outcome of the R v Willer case?

The court allowed the appeal and held that duress was applicable Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary requirement for duress by circumstances?

Circumstances that override the individual's will Signup and view all the answers

What was the outcome of the R v Quayle case?

The court rejected the defence of duress Signup and view all the answers

What is the relevance of personal characteristics in determining duress?

They are relevant in determining the individual's ability to resist a threat Signup and view all the answers

What is the purpose of the objective standard in duress cases?

To assess whether a reasonable person would have acted as D did Signup and view all the answers

What is the limitation of the duress defence, as seen in R v Hudson and Taylor?

It does not apply to threats that are not imminent Signup and view all the answers

What is the main reason defences are established in the law?

To account for important contextual factors in offence definitions Signup and view all the answers

What is the key difference between a denial of offence and a defence?

A denial of offence claims a lack of responsibility, while a defence claims an excuse or justification Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary focus of the insanity defence?

To determine whether the defendant lacks responsibility due to a defect of reason Signup and view all the answers

What is the main difference between the M'Naughten rules and the R v Sullivan case?

The M'Naughten rules are used for insanity as a denial, while the R v Sullivan case is used for insanity as a defence Signup and view all the answers

What is the main characteristic of the duress defence?

It is an excusatory defence, where the defendant's actions are seen as morally wrong, but excused due to circumstances Signup and view all the answers

What is the key requirement for the duress defence to apply?

The threat must be serious and imminent, and the defendant must have no reasonable alternative but to commit the offence Signup and view all the answers

What is the exception to the duress defence?

Offences of murder, attempted murder, and serious forms of treason Signup and view all the answers

What is the evidential burden in duress cases?

The defendant bears the evidential burden to provide some evidence of duress, then the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt Signup and view all the answers

What is the main difference between duress by threats and duress by circumstances?

Duress by threats involves a threat to someone, while duress by circumstances involves a threat of immediate danger from circumstances Signup and view all the answers

What is the relationship between automatism and the insanity defence?

Automatism is a denial of offence, where the defendant claims they did not commit the offence Signup and view all the answers

Duress is a defence that negates the actus reus of an offence.

False Signup and view all the answers

The insanity defence is a complete defence that can lead to a full acquittal.

True Signup and view all the answers

The M'Naughten rules are used to determine whether the defendant was under duress when committing the offence.

False Signup and view all the answers

The defendant bears the burden of proof to disprove duress beyond a reasonable doubt.

False Signup and view all the answers

The duress defence is available for all types of offences, including murder and treason.

False Signup and view all the answers

The defendant's response to the threat is irrelevant in determining whether the duress defence applies.

False Signup and view all the answers

The insanity defence is a denial of offence, whereas the duress defence is a defence to the offence.

True Signup and view all the answers

The defendant's personal characteristics are irrelevant in determining whether the duress defence applies.

True Signup and view all the answers

The duress defence is only available where the threat is directed at the defendant personally.

False Signup and view all the answers

The objective standard is used to determine whether the defendant's belief in the threat was reasonable.

True Signup and view all the answers

In R v Gotts, the court held that the defence of duress is available for attempted murder.

False Signup and view all the answers

If D puts themselves in a position where they need the defence of duress, it is always available.

False Signup and view all the answers

According to R v Hasan, the threat must be to cause death or serious injury to D themselves.

False Signup and view all the answers

In R v Safi, the court held that objective evidence of a threat is always necessary for the defence of duress.

False Signup and view all the answers

In R v Rodger and Rose, the court held that the threat can be internal, coming from D themselves.

True Signup and view all the answers

In R v Cole, the court held that the threat must specify the exact offence to be committed.

True Signup and view all the answers

In R v Ali, the court held that prior fault in forming a relationship with the person making the threat can lead to the defence of duress being unavailable.

True Signup and view all the answers

In R v Valderama-Vega, the court held that the threat must be the sole cause of the offence.

False Signup and view all the answers

The defence of duress can be available for any type of threat, including internal threats.

False Signup and view all the answers

The imminence of the threat is not a requirement for the defence of duress.

False Signup and view all the answers

A threat of being cut up is not considered imminent if it cannot be carried out immediately.

False Signup and view all the answers

A person's IQ is a relevant characteristic in determining whether they acted under duress.

False Signup and view all the answers

Duress by circumstances is only applicable when there is a specific party threatening the defendant.

False Signup and view all the answers

A person's prior fault in forming a relationship with the person making the threat is a defence to duress.

False Signup and view all the answers

The test for duress asks whether a sober person would have acted as the defendant did.

True Signup and view all the answers

Duress by threats and duress by circumstances have different requirements for the nature of the threat.

False Signup and view all the answers

The duress defence is only available when the threat is made by a specific person.

False Signup and view all the answers

A threat of death or serious injury is not sufficient to activate the duress defence if it comes from internal circumstances.

True Signup and view all the answers

The primary standard used to determine whether a reasonable person would have acted as the defendant did in a duress situation is subjective.

False Signup and view all the answers

A person's response to the threat must be objectively reasonable to activate the duress defence.

True Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Defences and Their Importance

Defences are concessions to the strictness or potential unfairness of offence definitions
They acknowledge contextual issues or factors of human frailty
Defences are used when the AR (actus reus) and MR (mens rea) are established, but there is an excuse or justification to avoid liability

Available General Defences

Insanity
Duress
Public/private defence
Necessity

Insanity as a Defence

Insanity rules derive from M'Naughten and confirmed in R v Sullivan
Three elements: disease of the mind, defect of reason, and lack of responsibility
Can be used as a defence or denial
Cognitive tests determine if insanity is a defence or denial

Duress by Threats

Concession to human frailty
D is under serious threat or moral dilemma, with harm not limited to D personally
Excuse to avoid liability, does not negate AR or MR
Evidential burden on D to prove duress, then prosecution must disprove beyond reasonable doubt
Not available for murder, attempted murder, and serious forms of treason

Elements to Consider for Duress

Exclusions: nature of threat, response to threat
Duress by threats: threats to someone
Duress by circumstances: threat of immediate danger arising from circumstances
Not available for murder, attempted murder, and serious forms of treason

Duress by Threats Case Law

R v Hasan: threat must be to cause death or serious injury, objective test
R v Howe: not available for murder, accomplices
R v Wilson: followed R v Howe's precedent
R v Gotts: not available for attempted murder
R v Safi: duress can be founded on a mistake belief, reasonable belief required
R v Branford: threat does not need to be directly conveyed
R v Rodger and Rose: threat must be external
R v Cole: lack of imminence and specified offence
R v Ali: prior fault in forming relationship with X

Duress by Circumstances

Extends duress to cover cases where there is no identifiable party threatening D
Mirrors duress by threats in structure and requirements
R v Willer: D drove slowly on the pavement to escape gang, allowed duress defence

Response to Threat

Must be substantial cause, not sole cause
R v Valderama-Vega: clarified the 'sole' motive test was wrong
Threat of serious injury had to be sufficient cause
R v Hudson and Taylor: threat was imminent and operative cause of D's offence
R v Graham: test asks if a reasonable sober person would have acted as D did
R v Brown: characteristics affecting D's ability to resist a threat may be relevant### Duress by Threats
Threat must be of death or serious injury to excuse a criminal act.
Threat can be imminent, but not necessarily immediate.
R v Hudson and Taylor: threats of harm can be considered imminent even if they cannot be carried out immediately.
A reasonable person's standard of resilience is used to evaluate the defendant's actions, but personal characteristics (age, gender, pregnancy, disability, or mental illness) can be considered.
The test is primarily objective, but with a subjective element.

Human Frailty and Reasonable Fortitude

R v Graham: a defendant's vulnerable state (e.g., anxiety and medication) is not a consideration in determining their ability to resist a threat.
The court assesses whether a reasonable sober person would have acted as the defendant did.

Duress by Circumstances

R v Willer: duress by circumstances extends duress to cases where there is no identifiable party threatening the defendant.
The circumstances must override the defendant's will in the same way as a threat.
The same exclusions, nature of threat, and response to threat apply as in duress by threats.
The main difference is that the threat/demand comes from the circumstances, not another party.

Circumstances Threat/Demand

R v Quayle: the threat must still be of death or serious injury, and not come from the defendant themselves.
The threat must be external, not internal (e.g., personal use of drugs for medical conditions).
The court considers whether the circumstances would have caused a reasonable person to act as the defendant did.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

Learn about the concept of defences in law, including why they exist and how they differ from denials of offence. Understand the role of defences in acknowledging contextual factors and human frailty. Test your knowledge with this quiz!

General Defences Part 1

Choose a study mode

Podcast

Questions and Answers

What is a necessary condition for the duress defence to be available?

In R v Hasan, what was the defendant's relationship to X?

What is the test for determining whether the threat is sufficient for the duress defence?

What is not a requirement for the duress defence?

What is the result of D's prior fault in forming a relationship with the person making the threat?

What is the result of the threat not being imminent?

What is the requirement for the response to the threat?

What is the result of the defendant's honest belief that the threat existed, even if unreasonable?

What type of threat does not activate the duress defence?

What is the result of the defendant forming a relationship with the person making the threat?

What is the circumstance that D claimed led to her committing perjury in the trial?

What is the primary standard used to determine whether a reasonable person would have acted as D did in a duress situation?

What was the outcome of the R v Graham case?

In what way does duress by circumstances differ from duress by threats?

What was the outcome of the R v Willer case?

What is the primary requirement for duress by circumstances?

What was the outcome of the R v Quayle case?

What is the relevance of personal characteristics in determining duress?

What is the purpose of the objective standard in duress cases?

What is the limitation of the duress defence, as seen in R v Hudson and Taylor?

What is the main reason defences are established in the law?

What is the key difference between a denial of offence and a defence?

What is the primary focus of the insanity defence?

What is the main difference between the M'Naughten rules and the R v Sullivan case?

What is the main characteristic of the duress defence?

What is the key requirement for the duress defence to apply?

What is the exception to the duress defence?

What is the evidential burden in duress cases?

What is the main difference between duress by threats and duress by circumstances?

What is the relationship between automatism and the insanity defence?

Duress is a defence that negates the actus reus of an offence.

The insanity defence is a complete defence that can lead to a full acquittal.

The M'Naughten rules are used to determine whether the defendant was under duress when committing the offence.

The defendant bears the burden of proof to disprove duress beyond a reasonable doubt.

The duress defence is available for all types of offences, including murder and treason.

The defendant's response to the threat is irrelevant in determining whether the duress defence applies.

The insanity defence is a denial of offence, whereas the duress defence is a defence to the offence.

The defendant's personal characteristics are irrelevant in determining whether the duress defence applies.

The duress defence is only available where the threat is directed at the defendant personally.

The objective standard is used to determine whether the defendant's belief in the threat was reasonable.

In R v Gotts, the court held that the defence of duress is available for attempted murder.

If D puts themselves in a position where they need the defence of duress, it is always available.

According to R v Hasan, the threat must be to cause death or serious injury to D themselves.

In R v Safi, the court held that objective evidence of a threat is always necessary for the defence of duress.

In R v Rodger and Rose, the court held that the threat can be internal, coming from D themselves.

In R v Cole, the court held that the threat must specify the exact offence to be committed.

In R v Ali, the court held that prior fault in forming a relationship with the person making the threat can lead to the defence of duress being unavailable.

In R v Valderama-Vega, the court held that the threat must be the sole cause of the offence.

The defence of duress can be available for any type of threat, including internal threats.

The imminence of the threat is not a requirement for the defence of duress.

A threat of being cut up is not considered imminent if it cannot be carried out immediately.

A person's IQ is a relevant characteristic in determining whether they acted under duress.

Duress by circumstances is only applicable when there is a specific party threatening the defendant.

A person's prior fault in forming a relationship with the person making the threat is a defence to duress.

The test for duress asks whether a sober person would have acted as the defendant did.

Duress by threats and duress by circumstances have different requirements for the nature of the threat.

The duress defence is only available when the threat is made by a specific person.

A threat of death or serious injury is not sufficient to activate the duress defence if it comes from internal circumstances.

The primary standard used to determine whether a reasonable person would have acted as the defendant did in a duress situation is subjective.

A person's response to the threat must be objectively reasonable to activate the duress defence.

Study Notes

Defences and Their Importance

Available General Defences

Insanity as a Defence

Duress by Threats

Elements to Consider for Duress

Duress by Threats Case Law

Duress by Circumstances

Response to Threat

Human Frailty and Reasonable Fortitude

Duress by Circumstances

Circumstances Threat/Demand

Studying That Suits You

Description

More Like This

Criminal Law Defences