Self Defence | Infancy | Duress | Necessity
The remaining defences are covered in this combined lecture. It examines self-defence, under which anyone using force to defend themselves or another person has the right to a full defence under common law.
According to Section 16 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, infants are "doli incapax," or below the age of ten, clearly presumed incapable of committing any crime.
If proven, the defence of duress exonerates actions that would otherwise be illegal. If someone commits an act that would otherwise be considered illegal, but they did it because they felt threatened, they could be allowed to claim this defence.
The concept of necessity is frequently referred to as the lesser of two evils. The defendant was compelled to take the actions he did because doing nothing would have put him in more risk. That threat could come from another person or from an external source.
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter and the reference materials you should be able to:
understand how the age of the defendant can affect his liability for criminal offences;
state the test for the defence of duress arising from threats made to the defendant; understand the circumstances in which the defence of duress will apply;
trace the development of the defence of necessity;
state the test for duress of circumstances; understand when the defence will apply; and
highlight the differences between the defences of duress and duress of circumstances. understand and apply the law of self defence.
Key Cases
Self- Defence
R v Williams (Gladstone) [1987] 3 All ER 411
R v O'Connor [1991] Crim LR 135
R v Owino [1995] Crim LR 743
R v Bird [1985] 2 All ER 513
R v Beckford [1987] 3 All ER 425
R v Rashford [2005] EWCA Crim 3377
R v Clegg [1995] 1 All ER 334
Infancy
R v T [2008] EWCA Crim 815
Duress
R v Graham [1982] 1 All ER 801
R v Howe [1987] 1 All ER 771
R v Gotts [1992] 1 All ER 833
R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22
R v Valderrama-Vega [1985] Crim LR 220
R v Cole [1994] Crim LR 582
R v Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652
R v Bowen [1997] 1 WLR 372
R v Abdul-Hussain & others (1999) Times 26/1/99
Necessity
R v Bourne [1938] 3 All ER 615
F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1989] 2 All ER 545
Duress of circumstances
R v Willer (1986) 83 Cr App R 225
R v Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652
R v Pommell [1995] 2 Cr App R 607
The remaining defences are covered in this combined lecture. It examines self-defence, under which anyone using force to defend themselves or another person has the right to a full defence under common law.
According to Section 16 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, infants are "doli incapax," or below the age of ten, clearly presumed incapable of committing any crime.
If proven, the defence of duress exonerates actions that would otherwise be illegal. If someone commits an act that would otherwise be considered illegal, but they did it because they felt threatened, they could be allowed to claim this defence.
The concept of necessity is frequently referred to as the lesser of two evils. The defendant was compelled to take the actions he did because doing nothing would have put him in more risk. That threat could come from another person or from an external source.
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter and the reference materials you should be able to:
understand how the age of the defendant can affect his liability for criminal offences;
state the test for the defence of duress arising from threats made to the defendant; understand the circumstances in which the defence of duress will apply;
trace the development of the defence of necessity;
state the test for duress of circumstances; understand when the defence will apply; and
highlight the differences between the defences of duress and duress of circumstances. understand and apply the law of self defence.
Key Cases
Self- Defence
R v Williams (Gladstone) [1987] 3 All ER 411
R v O'Connor [1991] Crim LR 135
R v Owino [1995] Crim LR 743
R v Bird [1985] 2 All ER 513
R v Beckford [1987] 3 All ER 425
R v Rashford [2005] EWCA Crim 3377
R v Clegg [1995] 1 All ER 334
Infancy
R v T [2008] EWCA Crim 815
Duress
R v Graham [1982] 1 All ER 801
R v Howe [1987] 1 All ER 771
R v Gotts [1992] 1 All ER 833
R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22
R v Valderrama-Vega [1985] Crim LR 220
R v Cole [1994] Crim LR 582
R v Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652
R v Bowen [1997] 1 WLR 372
R v Abdul-Hussain & others (1999) Times 26/1/99
Necessity
R v Bourne [1938] 3 All ER 615
F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1989] 2 All ER 545
Duress of circumstances
R v Willer (1986) 83 Cr App R 225
R v Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652
R v Pommell [1995] 2 Cr App R 607
The remaining defences are covered in this combined lecture. It examines self-defence, under which anyone using force to defend themselves or another person has the right to a full defence under common law.
According to Section 16 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, infants are "doli incapax," or below the age of ten, clearly presumed incapable of committing any crime.
If proven, the defence of duress exonerates actions that would otherwise be illegal. If someone commits an act that would otherwise be considered illegal, but they did it because they felt threatened, they could be allowed to claim this defence.
The concept of necessity is frequently referred to as the lesser of two evils. The defendant was compelled to take the actions he did because doing nothing would have put him in more risk. That threat could come from another person or from an external source.
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter and the reference materials you should be able to:
understand how the age of the defendant can affect his liability for criminal offences;
state the test for the defence of duress arising from threats made to the defendant; understand the circumstances in which the defence of duress will apply;
trace the development of the defence of necessity;
state the test for duress of circumstances; understand when the defence will apply; and
highlight the differences between the defences of duress and duress of circumstances. understand and apply the law of self defence.
Key Cases
Self- Defence
R v Williams (Gladstone) [1987] 3 All ER 411
R v O'Connor [1991] Crim LR 135
R v Owino [1995] Crim LR 743
R v Bird [1985] 2 All ER 513
R v Beckford [1987] 3 All ER 425
R v Rashford [2005] EWCA Crim 3377
R v Clegg [1995] 1 All ER 334
Infancy
R v T [2008] EWCA Crim 815
Duress
R v Graham [1982] 1 All ER 801
R v Howe [1987] 1 All ER 771
R v Gotts [1992] 1 All ER 833
R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22
R v Valderrama-Vega [1985] Crim LR 220
R v Cole [1994] Crim LR 582
R v Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652
R v Bowen [1997] 1 WLR 372
R v Abdul-Hussain & others (1999) Times 26/1/99
Necessity
R v Bourne [1938] 3 All ER 615
F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1989] 2 All ER 545
Duress of circumstances
R v Willer (1986) 83 Cr App R 225
R v Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652
R v Pommell [1995] 2 Cr App R 607