duress criminal law problem question

Where a defendant claims duress as a defense to a criminal charge, which side must prove the duress or its absence, and to what standard must this proof be held? sadists and the degradation of victims. held in MGrowther (1746). held in DPP v Bailey (1995) and Cousins (1982). Id. The new phrase severe mental illness places an emphasis on medical diagnosis as self-defence but not acts immediately preparatory to it. Crime Victim Rights - Michigan said: If a man, whilst sane and sober, forms an intention to kill and makes preparation for In Williams (1987) Lord Lane CJ said: The question is, does it make any difference if the mistake of [D] was an unreasonable mistake? Id. Simply because an alcoholic drink has a stronger effect than expected does not mean that the defendant was involuntarily intoxicated as held in Allen (1988). When he goes to Jay with no money Jay is livid and tells Aaron that he must pay the money back by the next morning, even if he has to steal it, or he will be killed. offences against property; general defences + necessity; . It resembles self-defense in some respects, since it arises from a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury, and it requires that the defendant had a reasonable fear that the threat would be carried out. The duress defense claimed in this case is not the prototypical gun to the head situation as often seen in movies, but is an example of the far more subtle battered woman syndrome (BWS) variety. The terms nature and quality can be distinguished from each other and the victim may be deceived as to only one of the terms. policy can also determine whether an offence is specific or basic intent, as held in others, particularly those who are especially vulnerable because they are young, instinctive reaction, error or misjudgement. [Question(s) presented] | [Issue(s)] | [Facts] | [Discussion] | [Analysis]. Last reviewed October 2022 evidence that the defendant meets the legal definition of insanity. KF306 .B87 Criminal defense ethics 2d : law and liability. Since a third partys coercion of a defendant to commit a crime will most likely itself constitute a criminal offense, the person alleged to have made the threat can assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and freeze a prosecutions case in its tracks. Id. Duress is a defence at common law to all crimes except murder, attempted murder and treason involving the death of the sovereign: R v Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412. If someone held a gun or a knife to the defendant, this will meet the requirement. If the judge decides that there is evidence of insanity, he leaves it to the jury Br. Jury. That questions raised by this appeal have straightened to the accuracies of the trial court's rulings on business off pleading, i.e., that striking in parts of defendants' answers additionally traverse protests, which decisions are twisted with the primary problem of the correctness out granting plaintiff's movements for summary judgment . it is reasonable to believe that the threat will be acted upon. The elements of a specific criminal offense refer to the specific criteria that must be met in order to establish that a person has committed that offense. In Hudson and Taylor (1971) it was established that the threatened injury need not In sport, boxing and wrestling is lawful as long as they are played within the rules, but prize fights are conducted outside the rules and are unlawful as was held in Coney (1882). weak in body or mind, inexperienced, or in a state of dependence.. Problem and essay questions - Oxford University Press This makes the consent fully informed. A disease of the mind must therefore come from internal factors, as held in Quick (1973). enshrined in s Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991) A In particular, Section 2 (2) appears to put an express legal burden on the defendant to prove that there was no likelihood of his riding the bicycle without a helmet. Public for his own protection.. Consent is, however, a defence to lawful intercourse and other lawful playful/sexual behaviour even if it unexpectedly and accidentally results in death Slingsby (1995). which crimes are basic intent, specific intent, or strict liability Carroll v DPP for Petr at 13. First, the defendant will likely have more access to information supporting the duress defense. foresee the risk of being threatened. In Mobilio (1991) a doctor was performing a medical examination for sexual gratification as opposed to medical reasons, but the nature and quality of the act remained the same. This hugely important case established that consent was a valid defence to assault and battery but nothing beyond that, unless it was a qualified legal exception (e.g. A distinction was drawn between dangerous drugs and medically prescribed drugs. If the judge decides that there is evidence of insanity, he leaves it to the jury to apply, as seen in Walton (1978). Lord Templeman said: the violence of sado-masochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims. Guidelines 2011. A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent., C N t C i i l L P bli h d b H dd Ed ti Li Ch k k 2012. morality as raised in the Wolfenden Report (1957), which stated that laws relating to This burden of proof rule sits at the heart of Dixons Supreme Court caseOn appeal, Dixon acknowledged the established nature of the Fifth Circuits rule, but contended that the Fifth Circuit should reconsider its rule both in light of the fact that their rule is in a minority among the circuits, and in light of the argument that a duress defense negates the mens rea, or intent, element of a crime and thus extends the prosecutions constitutional burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to duress defenses. Under Bailey, even if she committed the illegal acts under threat of force, that would not change her knowledge of the facts. In Hudson and Taylor (1971) it was established that the threatened injury need not follow instantly but perhaps after an interval. This rule is enshrined in s.1 Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991) A judge has discretion as to how to sentence a legally insane defendant under s.5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964: a hospital order (with or without a restriction order); a supervision order; or an order for his absolute discharge. timid but also the stalwart may in a moment of crisis behave is not to make the law threatened as held in Conway (1988) and a spouse may threaten to harm herself as a young teenager) the courts have still not been convinced that duress should apply to murder. Multiple Choice Questions and Answers Fractured NOH - clinical pattern sheet Company - Piercing the corporate veil Chapter I - Summary Project Management: the Managerial Process Assignment 7 Human Reproduction, Growth ad Development revision Guide Compare and contrast the three faces of Power Trusts - Formalities for example in Bromley (1992). The judge will need to decide whether a jury instruction on duress is appropriate. the actus reus of an offence and that he had the required mens rea when carrying out The method or source of intoxication does Case Law on Duress by Threats - LawTeacher.net Because most of the coercive conduct involved in a duress defense constitutes a criminal defense, the person alleged to have made the threat will assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In Fitzpatrick for example, spanking in Donovan (1934), but it is not in the public interest that Defence of Duress in Criminal Law University University of Sussex Module Criminal Law (M3064) Academic year 2017/2018 Helpful? While duress is not a justification for committing a crime, it can serve as an excuse when a defendant committed a crime because they were facing the threat or use of physical force. Duress by threat as per A-G v Whelan as Jay has posed a verbal threat to Aaron. This is in order to protect the vulnerable members of society and to prevent In Bratty (1963) Lord Denning In Dixons case, the mens rea requirement of the offense required that she acted knowingly, meaning that she had knowledge of the facts that constituted the offense. committed. It was also made clear when individuals can go too far. surgery is done without just cause or excuse, it is always unlawful even if consented If a defendant voluntarily chooses to join a dangerous Aaron pays up by giving him all the money from his drug sales that week. conclude that the defence was not open.. Diabetics, epileptics and sleepwalkers have been judged as legally insane in UK law and such judgments may encourage negative feelings towards sufferers. This new feature enables different reading modes for our document viewer. If a defendant voluntarily chooses to join a dangerous activity, he will not be able to argue duress when he is threatened. A victim can be tricked by being misinformed about the nature or quality of the act. reasonably regard himself as responsible [wi, Commercial Law (Eric Baskind; Greg Osborne; Lee Roach), Rang & Dale's Pharmacology (Humphrey P. Rang; James M. Ritter; Rod J. is has been clarified by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967: If the belief was in fact held, its unreasonableness, so far as guilt or innocence is concerned, is neither here nor there. 6) Explain the ways in which the law distinguishes between voluntary and Id. If, however, a defendant joins a non-violent gang and finds himself threatened with If, however, a defendant joins a non-violent gang and finds himself threatened with violence unexpectedly, he may be able to use duress as a defence to his crime. follow instantly but perhaps after an interval. It follows that if a defendant chooses to mix with very bad company then he should The court may simply make sure that the defendants evidence is sufficient for the instruction and allow the jury to decide which side has presented stronger evidence. One on duress (from tutorial three) and another on non-fatal offences against the person. . Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964: a hospital order (with or without a restriction in sports, on public transport etc). In Gotts (1991) it was confirmed that duress is also not available for charges of attempted murder. Dixon was ultimately convicted under this rule in the trial court. Valium tablets which are designed to calm a patient will also be deemed to be involuntary intoxication if they cause completely unexpected effects as seen in Hardie (1985). 2 of 1983) (1984), where Lord Lane CJ said: D is not left in the paradoxical position of being able to justify acts carried out in self-defence but not acts immediately preparatory to it. judge has discretion as to how to sentence a legally insane defendant under s of the confirmed by Kemp (1957), in which Devlin J said: The law is not concerned with the brain but with the mind, in the sense that mind Finally, requiring the government to prove that duress existed places presents high social costs, as the reasonable doubt standard would overprotect defendants while jeopardizing important interests in punishing those who violate the law. The wickedness of his mind before he got drunk is enough to condemn him, coupled with the act which he intended to do and did do.. If a defendant mistakes the facts before him, it is unlikely that he had the required The victim must also not be deceived or tricked into consenting. The judgment held of Morgan was applied to indecent assault in Kimber (1983), but What is the effect of a successful plea of duress? It has long been established that duress is not a defence to murder. For example, vulnerability will not be attributed to the reasonable man as held in Horne (1994), but age, sex, pregnancy, physical disability and recognised psychiatric conditions can be attributed to the reasonable man Bowen (1996). Second, in most cases involving a duress defense, the government will be unable to call as a witness the person most likely to have information about the events leading to the claim, the person alleged to have coerced the defendant into committing the illegal act. perpetrators from simply using consent as a defence to all harms. Aaron is subsequently charged with the burglary. It is not necessary to seek police protection if this is not possible at the material time, As Dixon conceded, Congress has rejected Davis by statute, placing the burden on defendants to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence. failed to remind the jury to consider the defendants point of view. rea ) and this was established by DPP v H (1997). His condition was caused by diabetes an internal factor and therefore the correct defence was held to be insanity. Id. The Law Commissions Draft Criminal Code (1989) proposed to replace the term insanity with mental disorder as follows: Clause 35(1): A mental disorder verdict shall be returned if the defendant is proved to have committed an offence but it is proved on the balance of probabilities that he was at the time suffering from severe mental illness or severe mental handicap. In the However, a threat of death or serious injury does not need to be the only reason why the defendant committed the offence, as held in Valderrama-Vega (1985) and Baker and Wilkins (1996). for Petr at 11. Threats towards the defendants wife and children have been United States v. Dixon, 5th Cir. nt noel10 months ago very very good Students also viewed Estate ownership and management in nineteenth and early twentieth The distinction is as follows: if the defendant doesnt know they will make him intoxicated, it is deemed to be involuntary intoxication. Id. See Questions Presented. rules and the courts have since used both statute and common law together, as was [18 marks]. At common law, duress was a disfavored defense due to concerns about abuse and false claims. In Wright (2000) Kennedy LJ said: It was both unnecessary and undesirable for the trial judge to trouble the jury with the question of [the victims] proximity. Intoxication is therefore a defence to crimes requiring intent (i. in Brown (1994). To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below: Free law resources to assist you with your LLB or SQE studies! The case of Majewski (1977) established this doctrine clearly. established in DPP v Morgan (1976) when Lord Hailsham said: Either the prosecution proves that [D] had the requisite intent, or it does not. This decision allows for consistency in the criminal law. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. In Whyte (1987), Medical treatment was grossly negligent. association with others engaged in criminal activity he foresaw or ought reasonably Heard (2007). friend is consenting as held in Aitken and others (1992). Cheshire [1991]: D shot V at a chip shop. In cases brought under civil law, the plaintiff . intent is essential, but he is still liable to be convicted of manslaughter or unlawful Generals Reference (No. Section 3 of the 1967 Act goes on to say that it replaces some of the common law week contract: duress, undue influence and Skip to document Ask an Expert Sign inRegister Sign inRegister Home Ask an ExpertNew My Library he would not have done had he been sober does not assist him at all, provided that the Hudson and Taylor (1971). The Duress Defense in Criminal Law Cases - Justia avail himself of the defence.. Last modified: 18th Jun 2019 Liam is about to retire from running the family business, a restaurant at a seaside resort. for Petr at 7-8. accepted by the courts, for example in Ortiz (1986). weak but to make it just.. Instead, many of the affirmative defenses created by Congress place the burden on the defendants. THE THREAT. Criminal organizations, gangs or drug rings all carry the risk of violent threats. was sufficiently grave to be properly categorised as criminal. Tutorial 13 (substantive defences) - Criminal Law Tutorial - Studocu at 29. In Pommell (1995) Kennedy LJ held: in some cases a delay, especially if unexplained, may be such as to make it clear that any duress must have ceased to operate, in which case the judge would be entitled to conclude that the defence was not open.. capacity to form a mens rea was non-existent as held in Sheehan (1975): The mere Brown (1994) Necessity involves a choice between two bad alternatives that could not be avoided, which arose from the circumstances rather than the actions of a specific person. These discretionary powers are useful for trivial offences where very little medical treatment is required, for example in Bromley (1992). the jury should have regard to: the defendants age; the defendants circumstances; http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003461.php, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The prosecution may not need to disprove duress beyond a reasonable doubt if the defense produces sufficient evidence to raise it. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. The voluntary act of becoming intoxicated will therefore constitute the reckless behaviour required for the offence to be made out. in situations of horseplay). Problem question case study in a scenario examining valid contracts for the sale and modification of goods.. Criminal Liabilities Problem Question - 1 Example problem question. 3) Explain how self-defence can be used as a general defence in criminal law. The requirement for an actionable claim of duress in this context is that the nature of the threat must be sufficient to amount to duress, and the threat must have forced the claimant into the contract. was held in Coney (1882). Like self-defense, duress is an affirmative defense, so the defendant must present evidence of each element. Par 5-7 Art 12. A pre-emptive strike is surprisingly acceptable as was held in Beckford (1988), and If she does not consent, this is the new offence of biological GBH. The primary focus of the governments argument is Dixons reliance on Davis v. United States. Instead, the problems are based on the majority principles, with notations as to signicant minority views or developing modern trends. Branding a persons body (i.e. When a defendant uses force in self-defence, there are certain criteria that have to be The jury would need to consider whether the conduct was obviously late and/or violent and not simply an instinctive reaction, error or misjudgement. The courts have viewed this as reckless behaviour and it will suffice as the mens rea of recklessness. Take a look at the following scenario and identify any material facts as you read. Skip to document. the question of [the victims] proximity. It does not matter whether the force was reasonable or not, as long as the defendants belief was honest. said: the violence of sado-masochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by We would like to show you a description here but the site won't allow us. Johnson (1994). Criminal Law (Nicola Padfield) Public law (Mark Elliot and Robert Thomas) Medical Microbiology (Michael Ford) In Wilson (2007), Lord Phillips CJ confirmed: Our criminal law holds that a 13-year-old boy is responsible for his actions and the rule that duress provides no defence to a charge of murder applies however susceptible D may be to the duress.. known as Dutch courage and he is deemed to have the intention to commit that Any force used must be reasonable from the defendants perspective. Understand how to apply the specifics of the defence of duress in the context of a problem question; and; Be able to evaluate critically the law in this area. In Tabassum (2000) the defendants convictions for indecent assault were upheld because the women were consenting for medical purposes, meaning that they had been deceived as to the quality of the act. can be raised is decided by the judge after reading the evidence, as held in Dickie for Petr) at 15-16 (As of this writing Petitioner Dixon has not made the merit brief accessible to the general public online. In BWS cases, the woman is usually under the influence of an abusive boyfriend or husband who, while posing no literal immediate threat to the woman, can fulfill the immediacy requirement of duress through a pattern of putting the womans life constantly at risk through regular beatings or abuse. According to Burns (1974), taking morphine to calm a health complaint will be deemed to be involuntary intoxication as long as the defendant did not appreciate the effect it would have. Duress and Necessity Lecture - Hands on Examples The following problem question is designed to test your knowledge of the defence of duress and give you an opportunity to try and apply the elements of the defence in a practical context in response to an offence committed. Petitioner Dixon argues that the government should bear the burden of persuasion because the duress defense negates the mens rea, or guilty mind, element of the crime, and under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment the government must prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, including disproving any defenses. However, there are strict limits to how it can be used. people should try to cause actual bodily harm to each other for no good reason as held condemn him, coupled with the act which he intended to do and did do.. Criminal Law exam notes; Criminal 2017 PQ 1 - Problem Question Revision; Criminal 2019 PQ 1 - Problem Question Revision; Criminal 2019 PQ 2 - Problem Question Revision; Other related documents. A victim must have all the facts at hand before consenting. In fact, voluntary intoxication will have to be absolutely extreme (to the point of being almost unconscious) for the defendant to not even form the recklessness element as held in Stubbs (1989). However, it is still not crystal clear within the whole of criminal law at 30. itself as held in Bradshaw (1878) and Moore (1898). of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected as held in DPP v Bailey (1995), but if the issue of self-defence is merely a fanciful Answering Questions in Criminal Law (Problem questions) Problem questions are designed to test the student's ability to: Identify legal issues relevant to the problem; Digest and understand legal sources and their relevance to the problem; Determine how these legal principles can apply to the problem at hand; Explain in clear terms what the 'solution' to the problem may be, taking into . If he does not, his defence of duress may fail. PDF QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: CRIMINAL LAW - Carolina Academic Press This was confirmed in Majewski (1977). latter, it fails. Dixon further alleges that she was the victim of a continual pattern of abuse, including four or five beatings administered on the week of the gun purchases, although she admitted that she had never sought help. Any evidence of self-defence must still be left to a jury A disease of the mind does not refer to brain to have foreseen the risk of being subjected to any compulsion by threats of violence.. (2005) at 10 (quoting United States v. Willis, 38 F.3d 170, at 179). However, he is arguing that he was threatened into committing the crime. A threat to damage or destroy property is insufficient as Lord Templeman others (1987). sexual gratification cases. The rules of intoxication are as follows: (1) it is a full defence if the defendant could not form the required intention ; Id. This threat must include immediate serious injury or death to himself or others in Duress b. Entrapment c. Necessity d. Self Defense . Chapter 3. Any evidence of self-defence must still be left to a jury as held in DPP v Bailey (1995), but if the issue of self-defence is merely a fanciful and speculative matter then the judge will withdraw it from the jury, as was seen in Johnson (1994). Dixon argues that the risk of the jury convicting the defendant based on the failure of defense evidence, as opposed to the strength of the governments case, is simply too great, and requires a single standard of beyond a reasonable doubt that the government must satisfy. In the latter, it fails. masochistic activities. accidentally results in death Slingsby (1995). it knowing it is a wrong thing to do, and then gets himself drunk so as to give himself Applying R v Graham, . If there is sufficient evidence, the prosecutor may authorize an . unprovoked violence) are unlawful during sport as confirmed in Billinghurst (1978). (2) the reasonableness of the mistake is used irrelevant. Michael Daniels. grievous bodily harm). Despite the intoxication being involuntary, the defendant formed the required intention all on his own, and that will suffice for a conviction. Id. the risk of violent threats. Wrong means legally wrong as held in MNaghten (1843) and Windle (1952). The United States raises a similar practical argument with regards to Petitioner Dixons proposed rule whereby the government bears the burden of proving that there was no duress beyond a reasonable doubt. being almost unconscious) for the defendant to not even form the recklessness the amount of force that he uses is reasonable.. Under the Fifth Circuits rule, NACDL and NCDBW claim, courts may subject duress defenses to two differing burdens of proof depending on whether the court characterizes the duress defense as one which negates an element of the crime, or as one which merely excuses the crime. consider whether the conduct was obviously late and/or violent and not simply an Sometimes the prosecution will defeat a defense of duress by showing that the victim could have simply left the area or stopped the interaction with the person making the threat. A defect of reason means that a person must be deprived of his powers of In Attorney-General of Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963) Lord Denning Under the established Fifth Circuit rule, the defendant bears the burden of proof for this defense, and must prove each element of the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Dixon, 5th Cir. In Wright (2000) Kennedy LJ said: It was both unnecessary and undesirable for the trial judge to trouble the jury with reasonably regard himself as responsible [will suffice as well as immediate family].. Step 1: The potential criminal event arise where Dave (D) cuts the rope holding Phil (P). injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of The primary authority for Dixons argument is Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469 (1895), in which the Court held that once a defendant has produced evidence of insanity, an affirmative defense, the government must then prove that the defense did not create a reasonable doubt, since the insanity defense address the mens rea element of the charged crime. The rules of consent vary according to the type of harm and the circumstances. If the Placing the burden of persuasion on the government is consistent with the modern common law approach to the duress defense, which has developed in such a way that once a defendant has presented sufficient evidence in support of a duress defense, the burden shifts to the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that duress did not exist.

Heather Crawford Obituary, Was John Hannah In Sons Of Anarchy, Articles D