Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#crime #defences #law
Question
Must the threat be the sole reason the accused committed the offence?
R v Valderrama-Vega [1985] Crim LR 220 (CA) FACTS: The accused claimed he had imported cocaine because of death threats and in addition he said he needed the money that he stood to earn as he was under severe financial pressure due to a large debt he owed his bank. Furthermore, he had been threatened with the disclosure of his homosexual propensities. The trial judge told the jury that they should allow the defence only if the threat of death or serious injury was the sole reason for the defendant committing the crime. HELD: The Court of Appeal held that this was a misdirection. The jury were entitled to find the defence where the defendant acted because of the cumulative effect of all the threats, providing he [...].
Answer
would not have acted if it had not been for the threat of death or serious injury

Tags
#crime #defences #law
Question
Must the threat be the sole reason the accused committed the offence?
R v Valderrama-Vega [1985] Crim LR 220 (CA) FACTS: The accused claimed he had imported cocaine because of death threats and in addition he said he needed the money that he stood to earn as he was under severe financial pressure due to a large debt he owed his bank. Furthermore, he had been threatened with the disclosure of his homosexual propensities. The trial judge told the jury that they should allow the defence only if the threat of death or serious injury was the sole reason for the defendant committing the crime. HELD: The Court of Appeal held that this was a misdirection. The jury were entitled to find the defence where the defendant acted because of the cumulative effect of all the threats, providing he [...].
Answer
?

Tags
#crime #defences #law
Question
Must the threat be the sole reason the accused committed the offence?
R v Valderrama-Vega [1985] Crim LR 220 (CA) FACTS: The accused claimed he had imported cocaine because of death threats and in addition he said he needed the money that he stood to earn as he was under severe financial pressure due to a large debt he owed his bank. Furthermore, he had been threatened with the disclosure of his homosexual propensities. The trial judge told the jury that they should allow the defence only if the threat of death or serious injury was the sole reason for the defendant committing the crime. HELD: The Court of Appeal held that this was a misdirection. The jury were entitled to find the defence where the defendant acted because of the cumulative effect of all the threats, providing he [...].
Answer
would not have acted if it had not been for the threat of death or serious injury
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
reason for the defendant committing the crime. HELD: The Court of Appeal held that this was a misdirection. The jury were entitled to find the defence where the defendant acted because of the cumulative effect of all the threats, providing he <span>would not have acted if it had not been for the threat of death or serious injury.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.