Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
The essence of the defence of duress by threats is that a defendant would not have committed a crime but for the threats of another person - Consider how and why the courts have limited the availability of the defence.
Member rating: No Rating | Words: | Submitted: Mon Nov 10 2003
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
The essence of the defence of duress by threats is that a defendant would not have committed a crime but for the threats of another person. Consider how and why the courts have limited the availability of the defence. The defence of duress is a common law defence, which has long been recognised as excusing the defendant completely from liability, being a 'true defence'. D argues that a supervening factor should preclude liability. The force or threat of force is employed specifically for the purpose of compelling D to commit a criminal offence. The Australian case of Hurley and Murray (1967) gave a summary of the requirements and restrictions of the defence. D must be threatened with death or serious injury, the threat must be imminent and impending, D's belief in the threat must be reasonable, and a person of 'ordinary firmness' must similarly have yielded to the threat. In...
To see the full version of this document, and 144,847 others
